BULLETIN  OF   THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 

Serial  No.  487:  General  Series,  No.  321 


EXTENSION  DIVISION 


OF 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 


DEBATING  AND  PUBLIC  DISCUSSION 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  EFFECTIVE 
DEBATING 

(FOURTH  EDITION) 


PRICE,  15  CENTS 

Send  all  orders  to 

THEE.  W.  WILSOW  COM  PA  NY 

MINNEAPOLIS,  MINN. 

MADISON 

Published  by  the -Uijiver?ity    '..„'  »»•'•' 

April,    19)2 


Entered  as  second-class  matter  June  10,  1S98,  at  the  post  office  at  Madison,  Wisconsin,   under  th« 
Act  of  July  16,  1894 


UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  DIVISION 


DEPARTMENT  OF  DEBATING  AND  PUBLIC  DISCUSSION 

Bulletins   on  debating  and  the  discussion  of  public  ques- 
tions will  be  mailed  on  request  without  charge  to  citi- 
zens of  the  state.     Copies  will  be  mailed  to  addresses 
outside  the  state  upon  receipt  of  list  price. 
{DEPARTMENT  OF   CORRESPONDENCE-STUDY 

One  or  more  courses  are  offered  in  each  of  the  following  lines 

for  home  study. 
Agriculture 
Business  and  Industry 


Electrical,  Mechanical,  Civil 
Mechanical  Drawing 
-Surveying 

Highway  Construction 
The  Languages 

French,  Italian,  Spanish,  German,  Greek,  Latin 
History 

Ancient,  Medieval,  Modern,  American,  European 
Home  Economics 
Political  Economy 
Political  Science 
Sociology 
Philosophy 
Education 
Mathematics 

English  Language  and  Literature 
Physical  Sciences 

Bacteriology,     Botany,    Physical    Geography,    Geology, 

Chemistry,  Astronomy 
Law 

^Pharmacy 
Music 

Teachers'  Reviews 

/Any  one  or  all  of  the  above  departmental  announcements  will 
fee  mailed  to  any  address  on  request. 
DEPARTMENT  OF  INSTRUCTION  BY   LECTURES 

A  bulletin  descriptive  of  lectures  and  lecture  courses  will 
' )  «hk  tnailed  to  aitylatl dJress  on  request. 
DEPARTMENT  OP  GENERA  ^FORMATION  AND  WELFARE 

/.  BUHfe^r!s;aesjSP^)tiye.vf  *tKis  department,  including  Munic- 
•'*'•"  VpaKRelfeYenra?  «$i*le  ^d  Social  Center,  and  Vocational 
Institute  work,  mailed  on  request. 
[2] 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction  5 

I.     THE  VALUE  OF  DEBATING  AS  DISCIPLINARY  STUDY...  7 
II.     THE  ARGUMENT,  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FORM  OF  PUBLIC 

ADDRESS 11 

III.     ARGUMENTATION 13 

A.  Introduction 13 

Analysis 13 

1.  Origin  of  question 13 

2.  Definition  of  terms 15 

3.  Clash  of  arguments 16 

4.  Exclusion  of  extraneous,  admitted,  or  granted 

matter 19 

5.  Statement  of  special  issues 20 

B.  Argument  Proper 22 

1.  Arrangement  of  propositions 22 

2.  Evidence 24 

1st.  How  to  find  evidence 24 

2d.  How  to  value  evidence 27 

a.  Testimonial  evidence ; 27 

b.  Circumstantial  evidence 27 

a.  Generalization 30 

b.  Argument    from    casual    rela- 

tionship   30 

c.  Argument  from  resemblance. . .  31 
3d.  How  to  detect  errors  in  reasoning 32 

Fallacies 32 

a.  Hasty  generalization 32 

b.  False  analogy 32 

c.  Non-casual  relationship 33 

d.  Begging  the  question 33 

a.  Arguing  in  a  circle 33 

b.  Assertion 33 

c.  Arguing     from     doubtful    evi- 

dence    33 

[3] 

261386 


III.  ARGUMENTATION— Continued. 

e.  Ignoring  the  question 34 

a.  Beside  the  point 34 

b.  Shifting  ground 34 

c.  From*  part  to  the  whole 34 

d.  Fallacy  of  objections 35 

3.   How  to  meet  y.our  opponent's  arguments 35 

1st.  What  to  refute 35 

2d.  Where  to  place  refutation 36 

3d.  How  to  emphasize  refutation 37 

4th.  Special  methods  of  refutation 38 

a.  Reductio  ad  absurdum 38 

b.  Enforcing  the  consequences 38 

c.  The  dilemma 38 

d.  Residues 39 

C.     Conclusion 39 

IV.  PRINCIPLES  OF  DELIVERY 40 

1.  Voice 40 

2.  Gestures  and  posture 41 

3.  Speaking  not  talking 41 


[4] 


Cfte  Untoersttp  of 

UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  DIVISION 
Debating  and  Public  Discussion 
Send  all  orders  to 

THEH.W.  WILSOJVCOMPdm&^,  wis. 

MlJiJiJSsiPOUS,  JiUM. 
OFFICERS  OF  ADMINISTRATION 


CHARLES  RICHARD  VAN  HISE,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D. 

President  of  the  University 

Louis  E.  REBEK,  M.  S.,  Sc.  D. 
Dean,  University  Extension  Division 

FRANK  A.  HUTCHINS 

Secretary,  Department  of  Debating  and  Public  Discussion 

AD, MERE  L.  SCOTT 
Instructor,  Department  of  Debating  and  Public  Discussion 


PRINCIPLES  OF  EFFECTIVE  DEBATING 

This  manual  was  prepared  for  the  Department  of  Debating  and 
Public  Discussion  by  Hollo  L.  Lyman,  B.  A.,  Associate  Professor  of 
Rhetoric  and  Oratory  in  The  University  of  Wisconsin. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  Extension  Division  of  The  University  of  Wisconsin 
maintains  a  department  of  Debating  and  Public  Discus- 
sion. This  department,  and  instructors  of  the  department 
of  Hhetoric  and  Oratory,  desire  to  do  all  they  can  to 
further  the  interests  of  the  various  literary  and  debating 
organizations  of  the  state.  With  this  in  view  the  Uni- 
versity has  already  published  several  bulletins,  some  of 
which  cover  the  general  subjects  of  debating,  while  others 
furnish  bibliographies  and  outlines  for  special  topics  of 
debate.  On  some  of  these  questions  material  has  been 

[5] 


collected  by  the  department  of  Debating  and  Public  Dis- 
cussion, which  can  be  loaned  to  Wisconsin  organizations. 

It  is  necsssary  to  limit  the  assistance  which  can  be 
promised  to  those  questions  and  topics  which  are  covered 
by  the  printed  pamphlets.  It  will,  therefore,  be  profitable 
for  any  debating  society  before  choosing  topics  for  debate 
to  make  inquiries  as  to  what  subjects  have  been  investi- 
gated and  upon  what  questions  material  can  be  loaned. 

In  a  preceding  pamphlet  an  effort  has  been  made  to 
offer  suggestions  as  to  the  organization  and  procedure  of 
debating  societies.  Methods  of  procedure  for  the  first 
few  meetings,  a  model  constitution  and  by-laws,  an  out- 
line of  essential  rules  of  order,  and  convenient  table  of 
motions  in  order  of  their  rank  are  all  contained  in  this 
pamphlet  and  may  be  useful  to  those  who  are  planning  to 
organize  a  new  society.  The  purpose  of  the  present  bul- 
letin is  to  discuss  briefly  the  principles  which  underlie  ef- 
fective debating.  First,  there  is  set  forth,  the  value  of 
debating  as  a  disciplinary  study;  second,  suggestions  as  to 
the  proper  methods  of  investigation  and  of  accumulating 
material  for  debate;  third,  an  outline  of  the  principles  of 
analysis,  evidence,  and  rebuttal  fundamental  in  good  de- 
bating. 

The  central  purpose  in  all  of  this  work  done  by  the  de- 
partment, is  to  arouse  interest  in  the  discussion  of  public 
questions,  especially  among  the  young  people  of  the  state. 
"Tell  me,  said  Goethe,  "what  your  young  men  of  twenty 
are  thinking  about,  and  I  will  tell  you  the  future  of  the 
state."  Very  many  of  our  public  men  believe  that  noth- 
ing could  be  done  which  would  more  effectually  train  the 
young  citizens  in  civic  and  national  affairs,  than  the  for- 
mation and  maintenance  among  them  of  a  large  number  of 
active  debating  societies. 


[6] 


I.    EFFECTIVE  DEBATING 
Disciplinary  Value 

The  disciplinary  value  of  debating-  may  be  discussed 
under  four  heads:  1.  Training  in  self  control;  2.  For- 
mation of  correct  habits  of  speech;  3.  Organization  of  the 
power  of  thought;  and,  4.  Ability  to  recognize  sound 
reasoning. 

I.  TRAINING   IN  SELF  CONTROL 

A  concrete  instance  will  illustrate  the  discipline  in  self  control. 
In  Harvard  College,  three  years  ago,  there  was  a  'varsity  foot- 
ball player  who  desired  to  participate  in  an  intercollegiate  de- 
bate. He  entered  the  contests  through  which  the  members  of 
the  'varsity  debating  team  were  to  be  chosen.  When  his  name 
was  called  to  mount  the  platform  in  tho  first  contest,  this  young 
man,  who  could  dash  fearlessly  into  a  mass  of  Yale  interference 
on  the  gridiron,  was  so  overcome  by  nervousness  that  he  fainted 
in  the  aisle  and  had  to  be  carried  from  the  room  by  his  friends. 
He  returned,  however,  revived  by  the  fresh  air,  gritted  his  teeth, 
clenched  his  hands,  ignored  his  trembling  knees  and  blanched 
face,  and  by  sheer  will  power,  forced  himself  through  the  first 
contest.  On  through  the  tryouts  he  went,  gaining  courage,  poise, 
self-reliance  in  each  trial.  Finally  he  was  awarded  a  place  on 
the  Harvard  team,  which  later  won  a  decisive  victory  from  Yale. 
The  victory  over  Yale,  though  it  may  have  been  especially 
pleasing  to  a  Harvard  football  man,  was  of  comparatively  little 
importance.  The  real  value  to  him  lay  in  his  victory  over  him- 
self. This  young  man,  together  with  hundreds  of  others  who 
have  had  similar  experiences,  will  testify  that  the  training  he  re- 
ceived in  debating  was  of  as  great  practical  value  to  him  as  any 
other  single  detail  of  his  education. 

The  real  significance  of  training  in  the  art  of  public  debate 
becomes  clear,  when  one  considers  the  trend  which  modern 
education  is  taking.  "Education,"  says  someone,  "is  the  or- 
ganization of  the  power  of  behaving  successfully,  in  view  of 
differing  emergencies."  The  emphasis  of  educators  is  being 
transferred  from  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  to  the  acquisition 
of  the  power  of  doing  things.  Not  knowing,  but  acting,  is  of 
primary  importance  to  young  people  who  are  to  take  an  earnest 

[7] 


part  in  the  world's  activities.  Education  does  not  consist  en- 
tirely nor  primarily  of  what  one  carries  away  in  the  shape  of 
knowledge.  A  large  part  of  education  is  the  power  a  man  ac- 
quires over  material  things,  and  over  himself,  and  his  ability  to 
mould  or  to  change  the  opinions  of  his  fellow  men.  Giving  there- 
fore, all  due  credit  to  those  studies  which  open  up  the  world  of 
letters  and  science  and  learning,  we  still  may  safely  claim  a 
lasting  value  for  a  study  of  public  speaking.  Correctly  followed 
out,  this  study  teaches  how  to  acquire  self-confidence  and  con- 
trol; how  to  make  up  one's  own  mind  on  public  questions;  how 
to  give  practical  oral  or  written  expressions  to  one's  own  con- 
structive thinking.  This,  then,  is  the  province,  an  honorable 
and  useful  one,  of  the  study  of  public  speaking:  to  teach  a 
young  man  or  woman  how  to  think  out  a  problem,  and  how  to 
present  it  to  meet  the  needs  of  other  people. 

2.  FORMATION  OF  CORRECT  HABITS  OF  SPEECH 

It  is  not  especially  necessary  to  emphasizejhere  the  secondary 
benefits  which  come  from  debating.  Slovenly  speech,  imperfect 
articulation,  inaccurate  pronunciation,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
faults  of  incorrect  grammar  and  limited  vocabulary,  are  defects 
which  indicate  usually  a  lack  of  culture.  Youth  is  the  time 
when  these  shortcomings  should  be  corrected.  The  ability  to 
speak  clean,  pure,  finished  English  in  a  pleasing  and  confident 
manner  is  one  of  the  greatest  assets  a  man  can  possibly  possess. 
A  study  which  will  insist  that  "for"  is  not  "fer,"  that  ' •govern- 
ment" is  not  "gov-er-munt,"  ought  to  have  equal  standing  with 
another  study  which  insists  that  "o"  is  not  "e"  in  some  word  of 
a  foreign  language.  The  disciplinary  value  may  be  said  to  be 
equal,  with  the  balance  of  practicability  very  largely  on  the 
study  of  English.  Moreover,  a  boy  who  learns  that  a  harsh, 
rasping  voice,  or  a  deep,  bellowing  voice,  is  a  defect  which  he  can 
by  effort  overcome,  is  gaining  some  valuable  information.  Again, 
a  boy  who  tries  repeatedly  to  conquer  his  trembling  knees  when 
standing  before  his  classmates  or  society  mates,  who  attempts 
to  look  them  fearlessly  in  the  eye,  and  to  express  to  them  clearly 
and  forcefully  his  thoughts,  such  a  boy  is  better  fitted  to  face 
an  employer  with  a^request,  or  to  ask  a  school  board  for  a  posi- 
tion, or  to  act  as  assistant  counsel  for  some  older  lawyer.  Youth 
is  the  time  to  acquire.  Many  a  public  man  today  laments  the 
error  of  his  youth,  by  which  he  failed  to  get  control  of  his  hands 
and  feet,  his  facial  muscles,  and  his  vocal  apparatus  while  he 

[8] 


was  a  boy  with  time  for  such  matters,  before  he  had  by  habit 
confirmed  himself  in  his  bad  ways.  Training  in  these  essentials 
can  be  obtained  in  debating  societies.  In  any  town  there  are 
plenty  of  men  and  women  who,  when  approached  by  young  peo- 
ple asking  aid,  will  gladly  give  their  criticism  and  assistance. 

3.  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  POWER  OF  THOUGHT 

But  the  greatest  return  from  debating  society  work  is  in  the* 
power  of  thought.  Professor  Baker  of  Harvard  insists  that  his- 
public  speaking  courses  are  courses  in  constructive  thinking.. 
In  other  studies — language,  mathematics,  history — in  the  ele- 
mentary studies  at  least,  the  main  mental  effort  is  in  grasping: 
the  thoughts  of  other  men.  Only  in  the  original  research 
which  characterizes  the  advanced  stages  of  these  subjects,  is 
the  power  of  originating  thought  largely  developed.  On  the* 
other  hand,  the  essence  of  debating  work  is  originating  thought. 
A  student  is  assigned  a  topic  of  local  or  state  importance;  he- 
formulates  his  opinion  after  diligent  research  in  all  the  sources- 
of  information  open  to  him;  he  then  places  his  ideas  in  such  a*< 
way  that  others  may  grasp  them.  .  The  fact  that  he  has  to.  acfr 
independent  of  instructor  or  textbook  or  formula,  relying  only 
on  his  own  ingenuity  and  resource,  develops  in  him  the  power 
of  self-reliance  in  his  thinking.  Here,  then,  is  the  greatest  value 
of  our  literary  societies  and  of  debating  work. 

This  point  may  well  receive   concrete    illustration.     Suppose^ 
that  immediately  after  the  administration  of  President    Roose- 
velt recognized  the  Republic  of  Panama,  a  student  were  asked 
to  write    an    argument   on   the   question:     "Resolved    that    the 
recognition  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  was   justified/'     He    is. 
told  to  look  upon  himself  as  an  intelligent  voter  who  wishes  to* 
know  whether  or  not  he  should  sanction  the  action  of  the  ad- 
ministration.    He  goes  to  the  sources  of  information,  finds  out 
the  history  of  Panama,  the  previous  relations  between  Colum- 
bia, Panama,  and  the   United  States.     He  studies   the  treaties 
which  have  bound  these    countries.     Then  he  turns  to  the  au- 
thorities on  international   law.     He   discovers    the   grounds    on, 
which  recognition  of  a  rebellious  state  is  considered  justifiable. 
He  studies  the  precedents  of  recognition  in  the  previous  history 
of  the  United  States.     Then  he  turns  to  the  official  documents, 
and  other  sources  to  find  out  exactly  what  was  the  provocation 
of  Panama's  revolt  from  Columbia;  how  strong  the  armies  of  the 
rebels  and  of  the  mother  state  were  relatively;  what  the  charac- 

[9] 


ter  of  the  rebels  was:  what  was  the  likelihood  of  Columbia's  sub- 
duing the  rebels,  and  similar  facts.  He  then  first  takes  the  point 
of  view  of  the  supporters  of  the  administration  and  formulates 
an  outline  of  arguments  in  favor  of  the  action  of  the  administra- 
tion, then  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  opponents  of  the  adminis- 
tration he  formulates  an  outline  against  the  recognition.  With 
the  main  contentions  of  both  sides  before  him,  he  sees  where  the 
real  clash  in  opinion  lies.  He  determines  which  side  has  the 
preponderance  of  truth.  He  is  now  ready  to  argue.  Believing 
firmly  that  the  administration  was  or  was  not  justified,  as  the 
case  may  be,  he  now  arranges  his  thought  in  logical  and  sequen- 
tial form.  He  masses  his  evidence  on  the  essential  issues  in 
such  a  way  as  to  demonstrate  clearly  the  truth  as  he  sees  it.  He 
is  then  told  to  consider  the  mental  attitude  of  a  man  who  holds 
the  opposite  view,  and  to  rearrange  and  rephrase  his  argument  so 
as  to  meet  the  prejudices,  opinions,  and  preconceived  ideas  of  the 
other  man.  If  he  has  carried  out  all  of  these  involved  delicate 
processes,  the  student  has  giown  in  the  power  of  research,  in  the 
power  of  constructive  thinking,  in  the  power  of  presentation. 
He  has  done  much  to  organize  the  power  of  successful  behavior 
in  one  difficult  problem.  He  has  learned  something,  depending 
on  the  fullness  and  ability  of  his  work,  of  greater  or  lesser  edu- 
cational value. 

4.     ABILITY  TO  RECOGNIZE  SOUND  REASONING 

There  is  another  decid-ed  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the  study 
of  debating;  it  teaches  one  to  be  on  his  guard  while  reading  ed- 
itorials or  public  letters,  or  while  listening  to  any  public  speech. 
It  enables  one  to  cuil  out  of  public  addresses  those  things  which 
;.are  not  worthy  of  belief,  and  enables  him  to  detect  fallacious 
reasoning.  The  public  have  thrust  upon  them  an  incalculable 
^number  of  public  documents  and  addresses,  only  a  few  of  which 
'may  be  said  to  be  sound,  sane,  sensible,  convincing  discussions 
-of  public  questions.  Too  many  people  are  unable  to  appreciate 
-a,  sound  argument  when  they  hear  it.  Witness  the  thousands 
^who  are  ready  to  follow  political  demagogues  in  every  campaign. 
'The  young  man  who  has  learned  to  watch  carefully  his  own  rea- 
soning is  not  apt  blindly  to  accept  the  fallacious  teaching  of 
vpublic  leaders. 

The  advantages,  then,  of  work  along  these  lines,  may  be  briefly 
^summed  up  as  follows:  The  student  gains  in  self  control,  phys- 
ical and  mental.  He  learns,  in  his  learning  period,  to  articulate 

[10] 


and  to  pronounce  accurately  and  to  vocalize  acceptably.  He- 
learns  by  practice  how  to  acquire  information  on  difficult  sub- 
jects; how  to  formulate  sound  judgments  upon  which  to  rest 
his  convictions.  He  acquires  the  ability  to  grasp  the  central 
issues  in  any  problem;  how  to  present  the  truth  as  he  sees  it,  to- 
other men.  Finally,  he  has  acquired  the  power  of  distinguish- 
ing between  what  is  credible  and  what  is  not  worthy^of  belief  in 
all  public  discussions.  This  is  the  educational  province  of  our 
debating  work.  It  is  worthy  the  effort  of  every  teacher  who  de- 
sires to  see  his  students  grow  in  the  power  of  "doing."  Such 
work  ought  not  to  be  neglected  by  any  young  man  or  woman  in 
Wisconsin.  In  a  hundred  towns  are  public  libraries  which  can 
furnish  rooms  for  debating  societies.  Men  and  women  who  ap- 
preciate what  this  work  can  do  for  the  state  are  needed  to  start 
such  societies  and  by  their  continued  interest  to  sustain  them. 
That  would  be  public  service  worth  while. 

II.  THE  ARGUMENT  (*) 

ITS  VALUE  AS  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  FORM  OF  PUBLIC 
ADDRESS. 

Having  thus  set  forth  the  value  of  debating-,  it  is  our 
purpose  now  to  outline  the  essential  principles  of  good 
argumentation  as  the  form  of  all  good  public  address. 
When  a  man  argues,  he  attempts  to  make  others  see  the 
truth  as  he  sees  it.  He  is  presenting  proof  that  his  view 
is  right.  He  must  support  his  statements  with  proof  that 
shall  convince  his  hearers.  But  he  must  do  more  for  he 
must  present  his  evidence  in  such  a  way  that  his  hearers, 
having  been  convinced,  may  feel  an  inclination  to  do 

(*)The  principles  of  effective  argumentation  are  set  forth  in  this  section* 
as  they  are  taught  by  Professor  Geo.  P.  Baker  of  Harvard  College.  Pro- 
fessor Baker's  methods  are  closely  followed  by  all  teachers  of  argumenta- 
tion. The  most  reliable  textbooks  are: 

1.  The  Principles  of  Argumentation,  Baker  &  Ountington,  Ginn  &  Co. 

2.  Argumentation  and  Debating,  Foster.  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co. 

3.  Argumentation  and  Debate,  Laycock  and  Scales,  The  Macmillan Com- 
pany. 

4.  Briefs  for  Debate,  Brookings  &  Ringwalt,  Henry  Holt  &  Co.. 

5.  Forensic  Oratory,  Robinson. 

6.  Art  of  Debate,  Alden,  Henry  Holt  &  Co. 

7.  Argumentation,  Perry,  American  Book  Company.. 

[11] 


more  than  say,  "Yes,  the  speaker  is  right."  They  must 
:say,  Yes,  he  is  right,  let  us  do  as  he  advises."  He  must 
arouse  in  his  hearers  a  determination  to  act.  It  is  far 
^easier  to  convince  a  man  that  the  policy  of  his  political 
party  is  wrong,  than  it  is  to  persuade  him  to  change  his 
vote  from  that  party,  if  he  has  long  adhered  to  it.  The 
effective  public  speaker  is  not  the  one  whose  hearers  are 
pleased  with  his  beautiful  voice,  charmed  by  his  delight- 
ful manner  and  entertained  by  his  address.  "You,"  said 
Demosthenes  to  his  great  rival  orator,  Aeschines,  "You 
make  them  say  'how  well  he  speaks.'  I  make  them  sayr 
Let  us  march  against  Phillip."'  The  effective  debater 
must  not  be  content  with  pleasing;  his  purpose  in  speak- 
ing is  accomplished  only  when  he  actually  produces  a 
change  in  the  actions  of  his  audience.  This  is  done  by 
first  convincing  them  that  he  is  right,  then  by  persuading 
them  to  act. 

In  this  sense  all  public  addresses  are  exactly  like  debat- 
ing. Whether  one  is  giving  the  truth  to  other  minds  in 
an  after-dinner  speech,  in  a  legislative  address,  in  a  ser- 
mon, in  a  eulogy,  or  in  any  of  the  other  forms  of  public 
address,  in  each  aud  every  one  he  must  apply  the  same 
principles  of  conviction  and  persuasion  which  underlie 
sound  argumentation.  In  short,  the  only  distinction  be- 
tween the  various  forms  of  public  address,  is  the  adapta- 
tion of  each  to  the  particular  circumstances  under  which 
it  is  delivered.  It  is  high  time  that  we  discard  the  old 
idea  that  "Oratory"  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  other 
forms  of  public  address.  The  o rater  of  today,  is  the 
good  debater;  adapting  himself  arid  his  subjeet,  to  differ- 
ing occasions  and  various  audiences.  The  orator  is  a  man 
who  presents  a  truth  effectively.  And  to  present  a  truth 
effectively,  either  in  written  or  in  oral  discourse,  one 
must  know  the  principles  which  produce  conviction  and 
those  which  underlie  persuasion.  Hence  in  studying  the 

[12] 


principles  of  effective   argumentation,   we  study  the   fun- 
damentals of  all  good  public  address. 

HI.  ARGUMENTATION 

An  effective  argument  is  composed  of  three  parts,  an 
introduction,  an  argument  proper,  and  a  conclusion. 

A.  INTRODUCTION 

The  introduction  is  that  part  of  the  argument  which  cuts  the 
whole  case  down  to  a  few  central  or  vital  issues,  upon  which  the 
decision  of  fair-minded  men  should  rest.  The  good  debater  as 
not  content  to  talk  on  the  subject;  he  must  go  right  to  the  heart 
of  the  case  and  discuss  only  the  essentials.  For  instance,  one 
debating  the  question,  "Resolved,  That  immigration  should  be 
restricted  by  a  literacy  test,"  when  he  comes  to  debate  finds 
himself  grouping  hrs  arguments  about  the  following  central 
points. 

1st.  Have  illiterate  immigrants  pauper  and  criminal  tenden- 
cies? 

2nd.  Are  illiterates  hard  to  assimilate? 

3rd.  Do  they  lower  the  standard  of  American  life? 

4th.  Can  a  literacy  test  be  effectively  applied? 

Analysis 

But  these  issues  have  not  been  chosen  arbitrarily.  They 
have  been  determined  by  a  process  of  thought  called  analysis. 
It  is  this  preliminary  examination  of  the  whole  case,  which  re- 
sults in  the  selection  of  a  few  central  issues,  which  must  be 
found  in  the  introduction. 

The  various  steps  of  analysis  which  precede  good  debating  are 
five  in  number,  (1)  The  origin  of  the  question;  (2)  The  definition 
of  all  doubtful  terms;  (3)  The  clash  of  arguments;  (4)  The  ex- 
clusion of  extraneous,  admitted,  or  waived  matter;  (5)  A  clear 
statement  of  the  central  issues  in  the  discussion. 

1.     ORIGIN  OF  QUESTION— FIRST  STEP  IN  ANALYSIS 

The  starting  point  of  any  argument  lies  in  the  real  or  in  the 
alleged  existence  of  a  human  need.  Some  evils  are  complained 
of.  The  first  purpose  of  the  argument  is  either  to  prove  the  ex- 

[13] 


istence  or  the  nonexistence  of  those  evils.  It'  it  be  proved  or  ad- 
mitted that  evils  exist  it  becomes  the  purpose  of  argument  to  show 
that  a  certain  remedy  will  remove  those  evils.  For  instance, 
take  the  question  of  municipal  ownership  of  gas  plants.  The 
first  thing  a  debater  should  ask  himself  is,  why  are  we  discuss- 
ing the  question?  He  will  h'nd  rhat  citizens  re  complaining 
that  private  companies  are  charging  too  high  rates  for  their  gas 
and  that  the  service  rendered  is  poor.  Before  he  can  argue  for 
municipal  ownership  or  against  it,  he  must  show  beyond  doubt 
that  the  alleged  evils  do  or  do  not  exist  as  the  case  may  be. 

Take  as  another  example  the  case  of  railway  rate-making  by 
a  commission.  The  debater  asks,  what  is  the  origin  of  this  dis- 
cussion? Why  are  people  interested  in  it?  He  finds  that  justly 
or  unjustly,  people  are  complaining  that  railroads  are  charging 
too  high  rates,  and  are  giving  poor  service.  It  is  further  alleged 
that  railroads  are  giving  rebates  and  discriminating  rates,  making 
it  possible  for  large  trusts  to  crush  out  competition.  A  disinter- 
ested, unprejudiced  investigator  insists  upon  first  finding  proof 
that  these  evils  exist.  If  they  do  not  exist,  there  is  no  debate. 
If  proved  to  exist,  then  the  question  centers  on  the  advisability 
of  rate  fixation  by  the  proposed  commission,  as  a  means  of  re- 
moving existing  evils. 

In  the  question  as  to  restriction  of  immigration  by  the  literacy 
test,  when  the  debater  asks,  why  are  we  interested  in  this  ques- 
tion he  finds  the  following  origin  of  the  question: 

1st.  The  volume  of  immigration  has  increased  to  over  1,000,000 
a  year. 

2nd.  These  immigrants,  largely  from  Southern  Europe,  are 
ignorant  and  illiterate. 

3rd.  Many  consider  illiterate  immigrants  undesirable  in  that: 

a.  They  have  criminal  and  pauper  tendencies. 

b.  They  crowd  in  cities  and  are  hard  to  assimilate. 

c.  They  lower  the  standard  of  American  life. 

4th.  Numerous  bills  have  been  introduced  in  Congress  estab- 
lishing a  literacy  test. 

Thus,  it  is  that  the  very  first  step  for  a  debater  to  take  is  to 
answer  for  himself  the  questions:  Why  are  we  interested  in 
this  subject?  Is  there  some  evil  admitted  to  exist,  or  alleged  to 
exist?  If  this  evil  exists,  is  the  proposed  remedy  satisfactory, 
or  do  some  people  object  to  it  because  another  remedy  is  better? 


[14] 


2.     DEFINITION  OF  TERMS—SECOND  STEP  IN 
ANALYSIS 

The  careful  debater  will  next  make  certain  that  in  his  propo- 
sition there  are  no  terms  of  doubtful  meaning.  If  there  are,  he 
will  at  once  make  their  meaning  clear.  An  audience  should 
know  at  once  exactly  what  the  program  is  for  which  a  debater 
stands.  For  instance,  suppose  one  is  arguing  the  question, 
"Resolved,  That  a  commission  should  be  given  the  power  to  fix 
railroad  rates."  Two  terms  at  once  need  explicit  definition. 
"A  commission"  is  doubtful.  The  debater  must  carefully  de- 
fine the  nature  of  the  commission,  the  number  of  its  members, 
the  scope  of  its  other  powers,  etc.  Then,  what  is  this  power  of 
"fixing  rates"?  In  a  recent  Wisconsin-Michigan  University 
debate  each  team  had  a  different  interpretation  for  this  term. 
Wisconsin  contended  that  "fixing  rates"  meant  the  substitution 
of  a  definite  rate,  for  the  rate  complained  of.  Michigan  argued 
that  "fixing  rates"  meant  the  substitution,  not  of  a  definite 
rate,  but  of  a  maximum  rate.  Michigan  showed  that  the  Wis- 
consin interpretation  was  based  on  the  Esche-Townsend  bill  of 
1904,  two  years  old,  while  their  interpretation  was  based  on  the 
Dolliver  bill  of  1906.  In  two  years  the  meaning  of  the  term 
"rate  fixation"  had  been  changed.  Thus  it  is  that  in  the  his- 
tory and  development  of  the  discussion  lies  the  best  method  of 
defining  all  doubtful  terms. 

Another  illustration  will  show  how  easy  it  is  for  a  debate  to 
go  astray,  by  a  failure  of  the  debaters  to  get  the  same  meaning 
of  terms.  In  the  annual  "joint  debate"  of  1905  between  two  of 
the  leading  literary  societies  of  The  University  of  Wisconsin,  the 
question  was,  "Resolved,  That  a  system  of  compulsory  working- 
men's  insurance  should  be  established  in  the  United  States." 
At  the  close  of  the  debate  certain  people  were  heard  to  complain 
that  the  two  teams  had  been  discussing  entirely  different  mean- 
ings of  the  term  "compulsory  insurance."  Athenae  seemed  to 
insist  that  "compulsory  insurance"  meant  that  the  employers 
should  be  compelled  to  insure  their  laborers;  while  Philomathia 
seemed  to  insist  that  the  term  meant  that  workingmen  should 
be  compelled  to  insure  themselves.  If  the  two  sides  did  actually 
cling  to  these  different  meanings,  there  really  was  no  debate.  If 
the  opponents  are  not  talking  for  and  against  the  same  program 
there  is  no  debate. 

Take  the  question  of  restricting  immigration  by  a  literacy  test. 
Evidently  it  is  important  that  opponents  discuss  the  same  mean- 
CIS] 


ing  of  "literacy  test."  The  thing  to  do  is  to  find  out  what  pro- 
visions of  exclusion  are  found  in  existing  laws.  It  will  be  dis- 
covered that  the  present  immigration  laws  exclude  all  idiots,  in- 
sane persons,  paupers,  or  persons  suffering  from  a  loathsome  or 
contagious  disease,  persons  who  have  been  convicted  of  felony  or 
other  infamous  crime  or  misdemeanor  involving  moral  turpitude, 
polygamists,  persons  known  to  possess  anarchistic  views,  and 
also  any  person  whose  ticket  or  passage  is  paid  for  with  the 
money  of  another  or  who  is  assisted  by  others  to  come,  unless  it 
is  affirmatively  and  satisfactorily  shown  that  such  person  does 
not  belong  to  one  of  the  foregoing  classes,  or  to  the  class  of  con- 
tract laborers.  All  such  classes  brought  to  this  country,  together 
with  those  who  shall  become  public  charges  within  two  years, 
shall  be  returned  at  the  expense  of  the  steamship  company,  or 
the  person  or  persons  bringing  them.  Dependents  upon  a  quali- 
fied immigrant  include  his  wife,  minor  children,  and  grandchil- 
dren having  no  other  support,  his  parents  and  grandparents  un- 
able to  support  themselves. 

If  the  present  laws  contain  these  provisions,  the  next  thing  to 
be  determined  is  what  the  last  bill,  passed  by  Congress  in  1896 
and  vetoed  by  President  Cleveland,  proposed  as  the  literacy  test. 
After  examining  this  law  the  investigator  finds  that  he  is  de- 
bating the  advisibility  of  requiring  all  immigrants  over  sixteen 
years  of  age  to  be  able  to  read  and  write  in  their  own  language. 
If,  therefore,  he  finds  his  opponents  arguing  on  a  test  which  re- 
quires all  adult  immigrants  to  read  the  English  language,  it  is 
easy  for  him  to  show  that  they,  not  he,  are  arguing  beside  the 
point.  His  definition  of  the  doubtful  term  stands,  because  it 
has  the  authority  of  Congress  behind  it. 

3.  CLASH  OF  ARGUMENTS— THIRD  STEP  IN  ANALYSIS 

Another  indispensable  step  in  the  good  preparation  of  a  de- 
bate is  technically  called  the  ''clash  of  arguments."  This- 
means  a  careful  balancing  over  against  each  other  of  the  lead- 
ing arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  Young  students 
most  frequently  go  astray,  by  disregarding  the  other  side  en- 
tirely in  the  preparation  of  a  debate.  In  reality  it  is  even  more 
important  to  know  the  opponents  strong  arguments  and  be  pre- 
pared to  meet  them,  than  it  is  to  know  one's  own  case.  A 
young  debater,  or  an  older  one  for  that  matter,  can  do  nothing 
better  than  to  take  two  sheets  of  paper:  upon  one  list  place  the 
strongest  arguments  for  the  affirmative;  upon  the  other  place  in 

[16] 


logical  order  the  arguments  of  the  negative — then  placing  the 
two  papers  side  by  side  he  can  tell  where  the  real  vital  differ- 
ence in  opinion  lies.  The  issues  in  the  debate,  the  points  which* 
he  must  prove  in  his  constructive  case,  and  those  which  he- 
must  disprove  in  refutation  will  appear  in  this  "clash  in  opin- 
ion." Upon  the  fullness  and  accuracy  with  which  he  sees  the- 
strength  of  each  side,  will  his  analysis  cut  the  case  down  to  the 
real  issues. 

The  following  illustration  shows  how  a  young  debater  can  well 
work  out  the  clash  in  opinion,  on  the  question,  "Should  the 
elective  system  be  adopted  in  the  High  Schools  of  the  United 
States?"1 


AFFIRMATIVE   CONTENTIONS 

The  elective  system    should 

be  adopted,  for 

1st.  Each  high  school  pupil 
is  better  able  to  choose 
for  himself  than  are  the 
school  authorities  for 
all,  for 

a.  There    are    no   studies 

essential  for  all. 

b.  Pupils  do  not  seriously 

neglect  the  studies 
most  often  called  es- 
sential. 

c.  There    are   many  safe- 

guards which  inhibit 
foolish  elections. 

2nd.  No  other  plan  is  as  satis- 
factory as  the  elective 
system,  for 

a.  The   group    system    is 

too  rigid. 

b.  A     partially      elective 

system  is  insufficient. 

3rd.  The  elective  system  is 
superior  because  it  stimu- 
lates teachers  to  do  better 
work. 


NEGATIVE   CONTENTIONS 

The  elective  system  should! 

not  be  adopted  for 

1st.  Those  in  charge  of  public 
high  schools  can  choose- 
better  for  all  than  can 
each  pupil  for  himself,, 
for 

a.  There       are       certain 

studies     essential   for 
all  pupils. 

b.  Pupils     do     not    elect 

these  studies. 

c.  Pupils  will  choose  fool-- 

ishly. 


compromises 
the    elective 


system    is 


2nd.  There  are 
superior  to 
system. 

a.  The   group 

superior. 

b.  A  partially  prescribed 

system  is  superior. 

3rd.  The  elective  system  is  ob- 
jectionable because  it 
prompts  teachers  to  make 
their  courses  easy. 


'Argumentation  and  Debating. 


Foster,  page  44. 
[17] 


Hougrhton,  Mifflin  Co. 


4th.  The     elective    system    is  4th.  The  prescribed  system  is 

strongest      for      building  of    greater    moral    worth 

character,      because       it  because   it   enforces  disa- 

honors  the  will  and  trains  greeable  tasks, 
in  free  choice. 

Once  more  take  the  question  of  "literacy  test."  Suppose  one 
is  called  upon  to  support  the  affirmative.  It  is  well  for  him  to 
make  out  a  list  of  his  essential  arguments.  Then  placing  oppo- 
site this  list  a  blank  sheet,  write  out  the  counter  arguments 
which  a  skillful  opponent  will  make. 


The  affirmative  maintain  that 
illiterate  immigrants 
should  be  excluded  be- 
cause: 

1st.       The  volume  of  immigra- 
tion     interferes      with 
American  laborers. 
2nd.  Illiterate  immigrants  are 
very    likely    to    become 
public  burdens. 
3rd.  Illiterate  immigrants  ag- 
gravate the  slum  evil. 
4th.  Illiterate    immigrants 
lower    the    standard    of 
life  among  Americans. 
5th.   The    literacy     test    will 
help  in  enforcing  present 
restrictive  laws. 


The  negative  oppose  the  ex- 
clusion of  illiterate  im- 
migrants because: 

1st.  The  present  volume  of 
immigration  is  needed 
for  a  labor  supply. 

2nd.  The  illiteracy  test  is  not 
a  just  test. 

a.  It  is  a  test  of  oppor- 
tunity  only    in    Eu- 
rope. 

b.  Illiterate     immi- 
grants   do    not  as  a 
class   become  crimi- 
nals or  paupers. 

c.  The     illiteracy     test 
shuts    out     a    great 
number  of  desirable 
men  in  order  to  shut 
out    a   few    undesir- 
ables. 

d.  Illiterate  immigrants 
do  not  as  a  class  in- 
crease slum  evils. 

3rd.  The  test  will  not  be  ef- 
fective because  it  will 
be  evaded. 

a.  It  will  be  only  a  tem- 
porary barrier. 

b.  It  will  prevent  coop- 
eration with  Canada 
and  Mexico. 


[18] 


4th.  If  there  are  evils  con- 
nected with  illiteracy 
among  i  m  m  i  g  r  a  n  t  s, 
these  will  be  remedied 
by  recent  legislation 
providing: 

a.  Distribution  bureaus. 

b.  Increase     of     proba- 
tionary  period  from 
one  to  two  years. 

The  clash  in  opinion,  then,  is  extremely  useful,  in  showing 
exactly  where  the  difference  in  argument  lies.  In  the  immigra- 
tion question,  it  will  be  seen  that  some  arguments  clash  vitally; 
upon  these  issues,  then,  it  is  more  than  likely  that  the  real  de- 
bate will  turn. 

4.  EXCLUSION  OF  EXTRANEOUS,  ADMITTED,  OR 
GRANTED    MATTER 

This  is  called  the  fourth  step  in  analysis.  In  the  public  dis- 
cussion of  almost  any  question  the  careful  thinker  finds  much 
matter  which  seems  extraneous  to  the  real  issues.  Most  ques- 
tions of  economics  or  politics  are  intimately  associated  with 
many  other  questions.  To  disregard  all  side  issues  is  absolutely 
necessary.  In  the  railway  rate  question  the  poor  debater  may 
waste  half  his  time  arguing  about  "over  capitalization"  of  rail- 
roads, not  seeing  that  this  matter  is  usually  admitted  even  by 
those  who  oppose  rate  regulation.  If  not  admitted,  it  can  be 
shown  to  have  vital  connection  only  with  the  question  of  high 
rates,  being  entirely  extraneous  to  the  issues  of  discrimination 
of  rates  and  rebating,  which  are  the  most  important  issues. 

Moreover,  in  almost  every  subject  there  are  certain  argu- 
ments which  cannot  be  disputed.  These  are  classed  as  ''admit- 
ted matter."  In  the  Nebraska-Wisconsin  inter-collegiate  debate 
of  1905,  Nebraska  argued  for  fifteen  minutes,  proving  that  ac- 
cidents on  railroads  are  increasing  in  the  United  States  at  an 
alarming  rate.  They  found  themselves  in  the  uncomfortable 
position  of  having  wasted  fifteen  minutes,  for  Wisconsin  ad- 
mitted at  once  that  accidents  are  increasing,  preparing  to  argue 
that  the  method  of  relieving  this  evil  suggested  by  Nebraska 
was  inadvisable.  Careful  analysis  will  prevent  just  such  waste 
of  time. 

[19] 


Again,  an  argument  closely  connected  with  the  question  may 
^>e  voluntarily  passed  by,  in  order  to  treat  adequately  certain 
more  important  issues.  In  the  railway  rate  discussion,  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  commission  which  is  to  fix  rates,  and  the  expense 
of  maintaining  it  are  certainly  closely  associated  with  the  case, 
3ind  in  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  the  subject  would  have  to  be 
taken  up.  However,  many  a  good  debater  would  waive  these 
•questions,  yield  a  point,  in  order  to  devote  his  time  to  the  real 
issues  discriminating  rates  and  rebates, 

Examine  the  clash  in  opinion  on  the  immigration  question 
{page  18).  Observe  that  the  affirmative  argument  "5.  Literacy 
test  will  help  in  enforcing  present  restrictive  laws,"  may  well  be 
•eliminated  from  the  issues,  because  it  is  extraneous  to  the  real 
•discussion.  So  in  almost  every  debate,  there  are  a  large  number 
of  more  or  less  pertinent  arguments  which  bear  upon  the  topic, 
but  which  do  not  touch  the  vital  issues.  These  side  arguments, 
a  skillful  debater  will  avoid,  by  carefully  eliminating  them  from 
the  debate  in  his  preliminary  analysis. 

5.     STATEMENT  OF    SPECIAL    ISSUES—LAST   STEP   IN 
ANALYSIS 

We  hope  that  it  has  been  made  plain  that  all  these  various 
steps  of  analysis  are  work  preliminary  to  good  debating  and  that 
they  must  be  taken  by  a  careful  debater  after  he  has  acquired 
all  the  information  possible  on  his  subject.  After  studying  the 
origin  of  the  question,  making  clear  and  sure  the  meanings  of 
terms,  examining  carefully  the  case  of  the  other  side,  rigorously 
excluding  all  matters  which  may  be  omitted  from  the  discus- 
sion, the  debater  should  have  left  the  center,  the  heart,  the 
vital  issue  in  the  case.  These  we  may  call  special  issues.  It  is 
•well  to  state  these  to  one's  self  in  the  form  of  questions,  for  in- 
stance: (1)  Are  the  railroads  really  granting  rebates  today? 
<2)  Can  the  El  kins  law  be  enforced  to  stop  them?  (3)  Could  a 
-commission  charge  one  rate  without  seriously  disturbing  a  large 
number  of  other  rates?  etc. 

The  main  issues  resulting  from  the  clash  of  opinion  on  page 
16,  are  given  as  follows:* 

1st.  Can  each  high  school  pupil  choose  better  for  himself  or 
can  the  school  authorities  choose  better  for  all?  (Which 
depends  on  the  subordinate  issues?) 

*  Argumentation  and  Debating;  Foster,  page  44.    Houghton.  Mifflin  Co. 

[20] 


a.  Are  any  studies  essential  for  all  high  school  pupils? 

b.  Will  pupils  with  free  choice  seriously  neglect  these 

studies? 

c.  Are  the  safeguards  of  the  electivQ  system  sufficient 

to  prevent  foolish  choices? 
2nd.     Is  any  other  plan  as  satisfactory  as  complete  election? 

a.  Is  the  group  system  satisfactory? 

b.  Is  the  system  of  partial  elections  as  satisfactory? 
3rd.     Is  the  elective  system  superior  to  any  other  in  its  effect 

on  teachers? 

4th.  Do  the  moral  benefits  of  free  choice  claimed  for  the 
elective  system  outweigh  the  moral  benefits  of  drudgery 
claimed  for  the  prescribed  system? 

The  main  issues  in  the  restriction  of  immigration  question 
seem  to  be  as  followsif 

1st.  Does  the  present  volume  of  immigration  of  illiterates 
seriously  interfere  with  American  labor? 

2nd.  Have  illiterates,  pauper  and  criminal  tendencies? 

3rd.  Are  they  hard  to  assimilate? 

4th.   Do  they  lower  the  American  standard  of  living? 

5th.  Can  the  test  be  made  effective? 

6th.  Is  recent  legislation,  having  no  literacy  test,  sufficient  to 
remedy  existing  evils  of  immigration? 

The  first  part  of  an  argument,  then,  the  introduction,  should 
contain  enough  of  this  process  of  analysis,  to  show  the  audience 
why  the  issues,  chosen  by  the  debater,  are  the  correct  ones. 
The  various  steps  of  analysis  given  above  are:  (1)  The  origin  of 
the  question:  (2)  Definition  of  doubtful  terms:  (3)  Clash  of  argu- 
ments: (4)  Exclusion  of  extraneous,  admitted,  or  waived  matter; 
and  (5)  A  clear  statement  of  the  central  issues.  These  various 
steps  represent  processes  of  thought,  through  which  all  careful 
thinkers  go,  before  they  determine  what  the  central  ideas  of 
their  address  shall  be.  Not  all  of  the  steps  of  analysis  need  ap- 
pear in  the  actual  debate,  but  not  one  step  can  safely  be  omitted 
from  the  preliminary  thinking  of  the  debater.  No  better  advice 
can  be  given  to  any  student  of  public  address,  than  to  tell  him  to 
analyze  his  question  thoroughly,  before  starting  to  write  his 
speech,  to  choose  a  very  few  points,  not  over  three  or  four.  Be- 
ing sure  that  these  are  the  vital  issues,  let  him  mass  his  evidence 
and  argument  around  them.  Thus  it  is  that  the  purpose  of  the 
introduction  is  simply  to  get  ready  to  debate.  The  debate  itself 
is  left  to  the  second  part  of  the  argument,  the  argument  proper. 

t  See  Clash  in  Opinion,  Page  18. 

[21] 


B.     ARGUMENT  PROPER 

ARRANGEMENT  OF  PROPOSITION 

The  second  division  of  a  well  constructed  argument  is  the  ar- 
gument proper.  Having  found  the  special  issues  and  made 
them  clear  tu  the  audience,  the  debater  now  proceeds  to  take 
them  up  one  at  a  time  and  to  present  his  evidence  upon  them. 
Suppose  that  one  who  is  debating  the  literacy  test  for  immigra- 
tion had  determined  upon  the  issues  as  given  on  page  21.  Let 
him  now  take  six  sheets  of  paper,  upon  the  top  of  each  one  of 
which,  let  him  write  a  proposition  which  shall  correspond  with 
his  view  of  one  of  the  special  issues.  He  will  then,  supposing 
him  to  be  on  the  negative,  have  six  sheets  of  papers,  headed 
separately  as  follows; 

1st.  The  present  immigration  does  not  seriously  interfere 

with  American  labor. 
2nd.   Illiterate  immigrants  do  not  have  alarming  criminal 

and  pauper  tendencies. 

3rd.   The  immigrants  concerned  are  not  hard  to  assimilate. 
4th.   Illiterate  immigrants  do  not  seriously  lower  the  Amer- 
ican standard  of  living. 

5th.  The  illiteracy  test  will  not  be  effective. 
6th.  Recent  legislation,  without  a  literacy  test,  will  go  far 
toward  relieving  present  conditions. 

It  is  perfectly  evident  that  if  these  negative  contentions  can 
be  established  convincingly,  the  affirmative  will  have  little 
ground  to  stand  upon.  Now  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  it  is 
not  effective  debating,  merely  to  talk  about  these  points  for  the 
allotted  time.  Each  proposition  must  be  proved.  The  careful 
debater  will  know  accurately  just  how  much  effective  evidence 
he  has  at  his  disposal  on  each  point.  He  will  have  determined 
before  the  debate  just  what  is  the  best  order  and  arrangement 
in  which  to  present  his  proof.  The  best  way  to  accomplish  this 
is  to  take  each  one  of  the  six  sheets  of  paper,  and  tabulate,  clas- 
sify, and  arrange  on  it  all  the  evidence  which  is  appropriate. 
For  example,  his  first  sheet  may  read  as  follows: 

The  literacy  test  will  not  be  effective,  for 

1st.  It  will  be  evaded  by  smuggling  over  the  border,  for 

a.  It  is  impossible  to  guard  3,500  miles  of  border  line. 

b.  Authorities  point  out  that  even  present  laws  are 

evaded  in  this  manner. 
[22] 


1.  Commissioner  of  Immigration,  1899-1900. 

2.  Investigation  Commission  of  1892. 

c.  Chinese  law  effective  until  recently  when  steamer 
lines  began  to  go  to  Mexico,  because  Canada  shut 
out  Chinese. 

2nd.  Canada  will   not   cooperate  in  any   immigration  re- 
strictions if  we  insist  on  this  restriction,  for 

a.  Canada  wants  settlers. 

b.  Canada  was  ready  to  agree  to  treaty  some 'years  ago 

that  was  more  moderate. 

3rd.  Test  will  not  be  effective  in  shutting  out  undesirable 
nationalities. 

a.  It  shuts  out  only  a  part  of  the  Italians,  etc. 

b.  Italians,  etc.,  are  fast  learning  to  read  and  write. 

c.  Only  effective  legislation  is  to  legislate  direct. 

His  second  sheet  may  read  thus: 
Illiterate    immigrants   do   not   have    alarming  criminal  and 

pauper  tendencies,  for 

1st.  Illiterate  immigrants  do  not  become  public  charges  as 
,     proved  by 

a.  Statistics  of  New  York  City  which  show: 

1.  Italians  are  only  .65  per  cent  paupers,  1.4  per  cent 
of  workhouse  inmates,  2.5  per    cent  convicts   in 
the  city. 

2.  English  with  same  population  have  4.4  per  cent 
paupers,  4.4  per  cent  workhouse  inmates,  3.3  per 
cent  convicts. 

b.  Statistics  in  Census  of  1890,  which  show: 

1.  Germans    in  the  United  States  have  per  million 

population,  2436  paupers.  1065  prisoners. 

2.  The    Poles    have  only  1486  paupers    per   million 

population. 

3.  English,  2163  paupers  per  million  population. 
4>  Italians,  817  paupers  per  million  population. 

5.  Portuguese,  the    most   illiterate  of  all,  have   the 
lowest  crime  rate. 

2nd.  Literacy  test  shuts  out  21  per  cent  of  the  foreign  born 

criminals,  but  lets  in  79  per  cent. 
It  shuts  out    1000  illiterate  men  in  order  to  ex- 
clude three  prisoners  and  eight  paupers. 

[23] 


3rd.  Illiterates  do  not  swell  slums,  because: 

a.  Illiterate  foreigners  are  12.4  per  cent  of  the  popu- 

lation of  the  country,  while  only  9.34  per  cent  are 
in  cities  of  25,000. 

b.  Thirty-eight  per  cent  of  illiterate  foreigners  over  15 

years  of  age  are  in  cities  of  25,000. 

c.  Forty-eight    per  cent  of  literate  foreigners  over  15 

years  of  age  are  in  cities  of  25,000. 
4th.  Illiterate  nationalities,  not  inferior  races,  because: 

a.  Their  history  proves  them  worthy. 

b.  They  improve  in  America. 

c.  The  present  feeling  is  only  the  customary  prejudice. 

d.  They  are  developing  peoples. 

2.     EVIDENCE 

As  has  been  said  above,  the  real  effectiveness  of  the  debate 
depends  upon  the  convincingness  of  the  proof,  which  is  pre- 
sented upon  the  essential  issues.  No  one,  therefore,  can  hope 
to  be  an  efficient  debater,  who  is  ignorant  of  the  essential  prin- 
ciples which  govern  the  handling  of  evidence.  He  must  know 
(a)  how  to  find  evidence,  (b)  how  to  value  evidence,  (c)  how  to 
present  evidence. 

1st.     How  To  Find  Evidence 

Where  can  I  get  suggestions?  How  can  I  acquire  information 
and  evidence?  These  are  questions,  which  every  young  debater 
and  many  older  ones,  are  continually  asking. 

When  questions  of  public  policy,  such  as  are  usually  debated, 
are  put  before  the  average  young  person  he  commonly  finds  him- 
self at  a  loss  for  reasons  by  which  to  justify  a  position  on  one 
side  of  them  or  the  other.  He  sees  none  of  the  ramifications  of 
the  subject,  does  not  perceive  its  precise  adjustment  to  other 
subjects  which  must  be  considered  with  or  separated  from  it,  and 
does  not  appreciate,  consequently,  the  re-adjustments  involved 
in  the  changes  proposed  or  resisted. 

The  would-be-debater  must  get  into  contact  with  the  facts  that 
bear  upon  the  question.  The  statesman  who  frames  laws  and 
votes  upon  them,  may  act  first  upon  a  general  impression  gained 
from  personal  experience.  But  personal  impressions  are  notor- 
iously narrow,  biased,  and  incorrect,  so  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  the  government  of  each  state,  and  many  cities  and 
municipalities  have  experts  which  in  the  aggregate  number  in 

[24] 


the  tens  of  thousands,  employed  to  compile  the  laws,  to  tabulate 
and  interpret  the  statistics,  and  to  investigate  and  devise  reme- 
dies for  the  abuses  in  connection  with  a  multitude  of  subjects  of 
public  importance.  Upon  the  reports  of  these  experts  the 
statesman  puts  his  main  reliance.  Any  citizen  of  this  nation  has 
exactly  the  same  access  to  the  facts  presented  in  these  reports  as 
the  legislator.  These  government  reports  are  legion  in  number. 
Many  of  them  are  veritable  mines  of  information.  While  they 
are  not  scattered  broadcast  over  the  country,  they  are  distribu- 
ted free  wherever  it  seems  that  some  worthy  end  may  be  accom- 
plished. To  facilitate  the  access  of  the  public  to  the  informa- 
tion thus  published,  the  United  States  Superintendent  of  Public 
Documents,  issues  at  the  close  of  every  Congress  a  catalogue  nam- 
ing and  describing  each  government  document  that  has  been  pub- 
lished during  ihe  past  two  years.  This  catalogue,  entitled,  "Cat- 
alogue of  the  Public  Documents  of  the— th  Congress"  maybeob- 
tained  from  the  Superintendent,  by  any  public  library,  either 
upon  the  request  of  the  librarian  or  upon  such  request  fortified  by 
the  influence  of  a  congressman.  This  catalogue  is  issued  as  a 
monthly  pamphlet  as  well,  and  may  be  obtained  regularly  in  i  he 
same  manner.  The  documents  described  in  these  catalogues  may 
•be  obtained  in  the  same  manner  as  the  catalogue  itself.  The  docu- 
ment of  greatest  importance  is  the  United  States  Census.  It  is 
•the  one  great  source  of  statistics,  and  a  complete  set  should  be 
in  every  library  if  debating  is  to  be  fostered  in  the  community. 

In  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  volumes  of  statistics  are  compiled 
yearly.-  No  catalogue  of  these  volumes  is  published,  but  the 
familiar  Blue  Book  will  show  the  different  departments,  bu- 
reaus, and  commissions  connected  with  the  state  government. 
Each  of  these  publishes  a  report  at  least  once  in  two  years,  and 
a  request  addressed  to  the  head  of  any  department  will  always 
secure  the  report  as  long  as  the  supply  lasts.  City  reports  may 
•be  secured  similarly,  whenever  they  are  published. 

Next  to  these  official  documents  in  importance,  as  a,  stimulant 
to  original  thought,  and  as  a  source  of  facts,  are  the  writings  of 
interested  men  in  magazines  and  newspapers.  Poole's  Index, 
the  Cumulative  Index,  the  Reader's  Guide  to  Periodical  Litera- 
ture, are  catalogues  of  the  articles  appearing  in  the  issues  of  , 
all  general  periodicals.  One  of  these  guides  is  sure  to  be  found 
in  any  library  that  takes  any  number  of  magazines.  If  the 
question  for  discussion  be  a  current  topic,  a  close  reading  of  the 
newspapers  and  a  clipping  of  the  data  which  appears,  will  give 
a  surprising  amount  of  information. 

[25] 


The  Gleaner's  Library  of  Beloit,  Wisconsin,  saves  clippings 
on  all  the  current  subjects,  and  lends  them  for  a  small  charge. 
This  library  affords  the  easiest  and  quickest  means,  perhaps,  of 
getting  newspaper  opinion. 

The  H.  W.  Wilson  Co.,  Minneapolis,  Minnesota,  have  also  a 
large  collection  of  useful  material  for  debaters  which  it  lends- 
for  a  small  fee. 

Sooner  or  later,  in  the  study  of  almost  any  question,  one  will 
discover  some  society  for  the  prevention  or  promulgation,  re- 
striction or  encouragement  of  something  or  other  connected  with 
the  question.  These  societies  are  always  glad  to  furnish  their 
partisan  literature.  In  every  high  school  library  there  should 
be  found  one  of  the  following  books: 

1.  Brookings    &    Ringwalt:     Briefs    for    Debate.       Longmans,. 
Green  &  Co.,  New  York. 

2.  Askew:  Pros  and  Cons.     Swan,  Sonnenschein  &  Co.     Pater- 
noster Square.  London. 

3.  Matson:  References  for   Library  Workers.     A.   C.  McClurg; 
&  Co.,  215-221  Wabash  Ave.,  Chicago. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  commend  a  slavish  copying  of  the  out- 
lines of  argument  which  they  contain.  Their  purpose  is  to  serve 
merely  as  models,  but  the  bibliographies  that  are  subjoined  are: 
of  prime  usefulness,  being  well  selected,  pointed,  comprehensive, 
and  above  all,  ready  made. 

The  University  Extension  Division  of  The  University  of  Wis- 
consin will  aid  debaters  in  Wisconsin  to  find  how  and  where  to 
obtain  helpful  material  for  study  and  reference  by  gift,  loan,  or 
rent.  In  this  work  it  will  have  the  aid  and  cooperation  of  the 
University  Library  and  the  Legislative  Reference  Department 
of  the  Wisconsin  Free  Library  Commission.  The  rules  under 
which  material  will  be  lent  may  be  found  in  the  General  State- 
ment Bulletin,  which  may  be  secured  upon  application  to  the^ 
University  Extension  Division,  The  University  of  Wisconsin. 

With  these  sources  of  material  in  mind,  it  is  now  in  point  to 
indicate  some  method  of  study.  If  the  subject  for  debate  is  of 
a  nature  purely  local,  interviews  of  men  representative  of  either 
side,  with  a  close  reading  of  the  local  newspapers,  will  take' 
the  place  of  the  course  of  study  about  to  be  outlined.  If  the- 
question  is  of  general  interest,  however,  it  seems  best  to  begin 
work  by  reading  magazine  articles  so  as  to  get  a  general  im- 
pression of  the  scope  of  the  question;  of  the  meaning  of  the; 
terms  used  in  the  various  points  of  view  from  which  it  may  be 
looked  upon. 

[26] 


Many  debaters  of  standing  take  no  notes  except  upon  facts 
palpably  necessary  during  this  general  reading,  wishing  to  gain 
simply  a  general  impression  and  grasp  of  the  subject.  Later, 
however,  they  take  down  striking  expressions,  strong  para- 
graphs, and  suggestive  facts  and  arguments.  They  never  crib 
the  language  of  the  articles;  they  may  quote  it,  giving  the 
credit  to  whom  it  belongs,  but  more  especially  they  mean  to 
use  these  strong  expressions  as  models  for  their  own  efforts,  and 
as  a  means  of  charging  themselves  with  the  indispensable  high 
potential  of  feeling  upon  the  subject.  The  careful  note-taker 
always  takes  down  the  pages  and  volume  from  which  his  refer- 
•ence  is  taken  in  order  that  he  may  refer  to  the  setting  in  which 
it  was  found. 

From  this  general  reading,  however,  some  confusion  of  mind 
-will  generally  result,  from  the  multiplicity  of  ideas.  The  student 
should  now  be  able  to  draw  up  the  Origin  of  the  Question  (see 
p.  13),  define  the  terms  (Ibid.),  outline  the  Clash  of  Opinion 
•(Ibid.)  and  determine  the  special  issues. 

The  student  should  not  read  all  his  magazine  references  first; 
a  few  should  be  read  as  already  indicated,  the  rest  in  connection 
with  and  as  an  interpretation  of  the  more  scientific  treatises, 
.such  as  the  government  reports,  scientific  publications,  and  the 
Census  statistics  which  he  will  read  after  making  out  the  brief 
already  described.  These  last  mentioned  sources  should  be  the 
main  reliance  of  the  debater  in  securing  the  evidence  and  formu- 
lating his  argument.  The  facts  stated  in  these  are  first  hand  in- 
formation and  the  opinions  stated  are  unbiased  by  private  inter- 
•est.  Upon  this  solid  ground  let  his  argument  be  builded. 

2nd.     How  to  Value  Evidence 

There  are  two  kinds  of  evidence  which  a  debater  must  know 
ihow  to  distinguish. 

a.  Testimonial  evidence  is  that  which  is  drawn  from  the 

"'opinions  of  authorities,  or  the  direct  statements  of 
fact  by  witnesses. 

b.  Circumstantial   evidence    consists  of  inferences  drawn 

fronTfacts;  in  other  words  it  consists  of  reasoning 
about  facts. 

The  distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of  evidence  is  well 
>brought  out  by  Professor  Huxley  in  the  following  illustration: 

>kLet  us  suppose  that  several  boys  go  to  a  pool  of  water  to 
.swim.  One  of  these  is  seen  by  his  companions  to  dive  into  the 

[27] 


water  and  he  does  not  arise.  His  death  is  reported.  This  is; 
called  testimonial  evidence.  The  boy  was  seen  to  drown,  you  are 
told,  and  your  judgment  concedes  the  fact  readily.  But  is  the 
proposition  proved?  *  *  *  The  authorities,  later,  drag  the 
pool  and  find  a  body.  The  body  is  taken  to  the  morgue,  and  the 
keeper  there,  an  expert  on  such  matters,  makes  the  startling 
assertion  that,  instead  of  a  few  hours,  the  body  must  have 
been  immersed  for  several  days.  He  concludes  this  from  cir- 
cumstantial evidence.  The  keeper  has  no  positive  knowledge 
that  this  particular  body  has  been  under  water  so  long.  Still  he 
has  seen  thousands  of  bodies  and  none  has  presented  such 
an  appearance  after  so  short  a  period."  *  *  *  In  the  first 
instance  the  statement  of  the  boys  is  testimonial  evi- 
dence, sometimes  called  direct  evidence.  In  the  second  instance 
the  reasoning  drawn  from  the  fact  as  to  the  appearance  of  the 
body,  is  circumstantial  evidence,  sometimes  called  indirect  evi- 
dence. 

a.     How  to  value  testimonial  evidence. 

If  a  witness  testifies  that  illiterate  immigrants  in  the  city  of 
New  York  tend  to  become  paupers^  how  much  belief  shall  one 
give  to  his  statement?  Evidently  the  value  of  his  affirmation 
depends  on  four  things. 

a.  Is  the  witness  an  expert  or  an  authority  on  the  subject  of 
immigration? 

A  debater  must  always  be  sure  that  his  hearers  are  willing  to 
accept  the  statemenis  of  his  authorities  as  worthy  of  belief.  A 
man  may  be  an  authority  on  one  subject,  say  the  management 
of  street  railways,  and  know  practically  nothing  about  immi- 
gration. If  a  United  States  Commissioner  of  Immigration  wit- 
nesses as  to  the  effect  of  illiterate  immigration,  his  testimony 
is  ordinarily  more  valuable  than  that  of  an  unknown  slum 
worker;  but  the  slum  worker's  statement  is  often  more  worthy 
of  acceptance  than  that  of  the  pastor  of  a  wealthy  city  church; 
the  pastor's  statement  ordinarily  would  be  more  valuable  than 
the  affirmation  of  a  business  man  of  Wall  street.  Thus  in  every 
case  the  debater  must  carefully  determine  the  right  and  the 
ability  of  his  witness  to  testify.  On  almost  every  subject  it  is 
possible  to  find  witnesses  who  give  directly  opposing  testimony. 
Evidently  that  debater  is  stronger,  who  makes  his  audience  feel 
that  his  witness  is  more  credible. 

b.  Is  the  witness  honest?     Is  he  prejudiced? 

[28] 


Secretary  Taft  applied  this  test  to  the  evidence  given  by  a  cer- 
tain Tracy  Robinson,  a  citizen  of  Colon,  who  had  made  damag- 
ing assertions  concerning  the  work  of  the  United  States  govern- 
ment in  Panama.  "His  animus  against  the  government  is  be- 
cause it  devoted  its  first  attention  to  the  expenditure  of  money 
in  Panama,  and  thus  raised  the  value  of  property  in  that  city; 
and  secondly,  that  in  the  enforcement  of  health  regulations 
by  the  sanitary  department  in  Colon,  he  found  it  necessary 
to  complain  that  his  vested  rights  were  being  interfered  with. 
He  was  willing  to  have  sanitary  regulations  enforced  against  his 
neighbors."  Evidently  the  statements  of  a  man  so  prejudiced 
against  the  United  States  government,  must  be  accepted  with 
reservation.  Another  interesting  illustration  is  afforded  by  the 
two  conflicting  statements  of  two  rival  newspapers  each  report- 
ing one  of  the  speeches  of  Senator  La  Follette  in  the  United 
States  Senate.  One  paper  supports,  the  other  opposes,  Senator 
La  Follette. 

He  had  a  splendid  audience,  The  galleries  were  thronged 

especially  in  the  galleries.  long  before  the  hour  for  the 
Here  was,  in  the  front  row,  Wisconsin  man  to  begin.  The 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Rowe,  a  former  corridors  were  packed,  with 
law  partner  of  La  Follette,  people  who  waited,  many  of 
Lincoln  Steffens,  and  the  La-  them,  three  hours  in  the  hope 
Follette  children.  Senators  of  getting  inside.  The  seats 
gave  only  indifferent  attention  of  the  Republican  senators 
to  the  speech.  who  left  were  taken  by  mem- 

bers of  the  House.  Democratic 
senators  gave  close  attention. 

c.  Is  the  testimony   consistent  with  other  known   facts?     Is  it 
consistent  with  itself? 

For  instance,  it  is  contrary  to  all  human  experience  that  a 
gentle,  timid,  kindly,  old  woman  should  commit  a  revolting 
murder.  Again,  if  A  testified  that  he  saw  a  blow  struck  with  a 
sharp  edged  weapon,  and  it  is  proved  that  the  wound  must  have 
been  made  by  a  blunt  club,  A's  testimony  is  inconsistent  with 
known  tacts,  and  must  be  discredited.  Again,  to  be  valuable, 
testimonial  evidence  must  be  consistent  with  itself.  If  a  witness 
can  be  shown  to  give  contradictory  evidence,  he  is  largely  dis- 
credited. 

d.  Under  what  conditions  and   circumstances    was  the  testi- 
mony given? 

[29] 


Was  the  evidence  given  freely  or  under  compulsion?  If  a  man 
accused  of  wrong  is  compelled  to  testify  against  his  will,  he  has 
incentive  to  lie.  If  he  is  evidently  trying  to  assist  investigators 
to  find  the  truth,  if  he  willingly  presents  his  records  and  his 
books,  his  statements  are  more  open  to  belief. 

Secretary  Taft  thus  applied  this  test  to  the  statements  of  a 
magazine  article,  the  writer  of  which  stayed  only  twenty-eight 
hours  iii  Panama.  ''Assuming  that  after  landing  and  docking, 
the  writer  at  once  began  work,  it  is  not  unfair  to  say  that  his 
opportunities  for  observation  were  limited  to  twenty-eight  hours, 
including  day  time  and  night  time.  It  would  seem  not  to  be  a 
long  period  in  which  to  look  into  and  determine  the  character  of 
engineering  difficulties  of  the  greatest  constructive  enterprise 
yet  undertaken  by  man." 

b.  How  to  value  circumstantial  evidence 
There  are  three  common  forms  of  circumstantial  evidence: 
#.  Generalization. 

b.  Argument  from  casual  relation. 

c.  The  argument  from  resemblance. 

a.  Generalization  is  made  when  a  general  conclusion  is  based 
upon  the  observation  of  many  instances.  For  instance,  the 
morgue  keeper,  referred  to  in  the  illustration  on  page  27,  having 
examined  thousands  of  drowned  people,  has  observed  that  sev- 
eral days  under  water  produces  a  similar  appearance  in  all 
bodies.  This  is  generalization.  If  a  witness  testifies  that  illiter- 
ate immigrants  become  paupers,  he  makes  a  general  statement 
based  upon  the  observation  of  an  indefinite  number  of  individual 
immigrants.  If  he  has  known  only  three  instances,  his  general- 
ization is  not  sound.  If  he  has  known  several  hundred  his  gen- 
eralization may  be  sound.  But  suppose  the  several  hundred  he 
has  known  are  admitted  to  be  the  very  worst  type  of  immigrants. 
Then  his  generalization  is  less  credible,  for  the  instances  ob- 
served are  not  typical, —they  are  not  fair  samples  of  illiterate 
immigrants.  To  test  a  generalization,  let  the  debater  ask:  (1) 
Has  the  witness  observed  enough  instances?  (2)  Has  he  observed 
typical  instances? 

6.  Argument  from  causal  relationship.  This  is  the  most  com- 
mon form  of  argument.  If  one  passes  along  a  road,  and  finds 
the  trees  broken,  houses  and  barns  blown  down,  men  and  horses 
lying  dead,  destruction  and  devastation  on  all  sides,  he  imme- 
diately concludes  that  some  form  of  terrific  windstorm  has  swept 
through  that  section.  He  sees  the  effect,  and  reasons  back  to 

[30] 


the  cause.  On  the  other  hand,  suppose  he  sees  rapidly  ap- 
proaching him  a  cloud  of  peculiar  shape  and  size,  having  a 
strangely  ominous  appearance.  He  recognizes  it  as  a  cyclone 
cloud,  and  reasons  that  if  he  is  in  the  path  of  the  storm,  the 
havoc  caused  by  it  may  injure  him.  He  knows  the  cause  and 
reasons  to  the  effect.  Simple  as  this  reasoning  seems,  it  is 
nevertheless  one  of  the  most  difficult  forms  to  handle.  A  man 
who  argues  that  the  panic  of  a  certain  year  was  the  result  of  an 
agitation  for  free  silver  during  the  previous  year,  argues  on  the 
causal  relationship;  but  he  is  fallacious,  forgetting  that  most 
effects  are  the  results  not  of  one,  but  of  many  contributing 
causes.  When,  therefore,  one  finds  himself  tempted  to  use  an 
argument  from  causal  relation,  let  him  ask:  1.  Is  the  cause 
assigned  sufficient  to  produce  the  alleged  results?  2.  Are  there 
any  other  contributing  causes?  3.  Are  there  any  causes  at 
work  likely  to  produce  opposite  results? 

c.  Argument  from  resemblance.  Lincoln  used  the  argument 
from  analogy  when  he  said  to  those  who  were  urging  more 
active  measures  in  prosecuting  the  Civil  war: 

"Gentlemen,  suppose  that  all  the  property  you  were  worth 
was  in  gold  and  you  put  it  in  tl^e  hands  of  Blondin,  the  famous 
rope-walker,  to  carry  it  across  the  Niagara  Falls  on  a  tight  rope. 
Would  you  shake  the  rope  while  he  was  passing  over  it,  or  keep 
shouting  to  him,  'Blondin,  stoop  a  little  more.  Go  a  little  faster.' 
No.  I  am  sure  you  would  not.  You  would  hold  your  breath  as 
well  as  your  tongue,  and  keep  your  hand  off  until  he  was  safely 
over.  Now,  the  government  is  in  the  same  situation.  It  is  carrying 
an  immense  weight  across  a  stormy  ocean.  Untold  treasures 
are  in  its  hands.  It  is  doing  the  best  it  can.  Don't  badger  it. 
Just  keep^still  and  it  will  get  you  safely  over." 

In  this  case  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  analogy  does  not  prove, 
it  merely  illustrates;  but  it  makes  the  reasoning  extremely  con- 
vincing. Frequently  one  hears  "Municipal  Ownership  was  suc- 
cessful in  Glasgow — why  not  in  our  city?"  or  "Compulsory  arbi- 
tration is  successful  in  New  Zealand,  why  not  in  the  United 
States?  These  are  attempts  to  use  the  argument  from 
resemblance,  Now  the  value  of  such  a  statement  depends  first 
upon  proof  that  compulsory  arbitration  actually  was  successful 
in  New  Zealand.  But  secondly,  upon  the  similarity  of  conditions 
between  New  Zealand  and  the  United  States.  A  skillful  debater 
will  point  out  two  vital  differences  in  condition,  which  render  it 
extremely  doubtful,  whether  compulsory  arbitration,  even  if  suc- 

[31] 


cessful  in  New  Zealand,  would  be  equally  effective  in  the  United 
States.  In  the  first  place,  New  Zealand  has  less  than  1,000,000 
inhabitants,  the  United  States  nearly  90,000,000.  But  secondly, 
and  more  important,  in  New  Zealand,  the  labor  unions  are  com- 
pelled to  incorporate,  thus  making  them  amenable  to  legal  meth- 
ods; in  the  United  States,  the  unions  not  being  incorporated, 
have  no  legal  existence,  and  therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  enforce 
decrees  of  arbitration  boards.  In  short  to  test  an  argument  for 
resemblance,  ask 

(1)     Are   the    general    conditions    similar?     (2)  Is    there     dis- 
similarity in  any  essential  particular? 

3rd.     How  to  Detect  Errors  in  Reasoning 

In  the  valuation  of  evidence  one  must  constantly  be  on  guard 
against  erroneous  reasoning.  An  unsound  mode  of  arguing, 
which  seems  convincing,  but  really  is  not,  is  called  a  fallacy. 
If  the  young  debater  will  memorize  the  following  list  of  the  most 
common  fallacies,  and  will  diligently  examine  both  his  own 
argument,  and  that  of  his  opponent,  to  detect  errors  which  re- 
semble the  illustrations  given  below,  he  will  go  far  toward  pro- 
tecting himself  against  unsound  reasoning. 
«.  Fallacies: 

1.     Hasty  generalization. 
False  analogy. 
Non-casual  relationship. 
Begging  the  question. 

a.  Arguing  in  a  circle. 

b.  Assertion . 

c.  Arguing  from  ambiguous  evidence. 
5.     Ignoring  the  question. 

a.  Beside  the  point. 

b.  Shifting  ground. 

c.  Part  to  whole. 

d.  Objections. 
Tests: 

a.  Hasty  Generalization,     (see  page  30) 

Tests  (a)     Have  enough  instances  been  examined? 
(b)     Are  the  instances  typical  ones? 

b.  False  Analogy,     (see  page  31) 

Tests  (a)     Are  the  general  conditions  similar? 

(b)    Is  there  dissimilarity  in  any  essential  par- 
ticular? 

[32] 


€.     Causal  Relationship,     (see  page  30) 

Tests  (a)     Was    the   cause   assigned  sufficient  to  pro- 
duce the  result? 

(b)  Were  there  other  contributing  causes'.' 

(c)  Are  there  any  causes  likely  to  produce  op- 

posite results? 
d.     Begging  the  question. 

The  three  most  important   forms  of  the  fallacy   "Begging  the 
Question,"  may  be  distinguished  as  follows: 

a.  Arguing  in  a  circle.     In  this  fallacy  the  debater  assumes  as 
true  without  presenting  any  proof,   a  point  which  is  equivalent 
to  the  conclusion  he  wishes  to  reach.     For  example,   a  student 
trying   to   prove    that    Mr.    Kipling    was  not  a  great  poet  said, 
"Many  of  the  poems  are  in  grossly  bad  taste,  for  they  are  so 
condemned  by  critics  of  refinement,  inasmuch  as  if  they  do  not 
condemn    them,     they    cannot    be    called    men  of  refinement." 
Another  example  follows:     "A  literacy  test  will  raise  the  stand- 
ard of  immigration,  for    ability  to  read  and  write  elevates  the 
•standard  of  men   and   women."     In  this   argument  the  student 
assumes  the  last  clause  as  true, — yet  this  last  clause  is  exactly 
what  he  must  prove  to  win  his  case. 

Test:     Does   the   argument    present   any    statement   as  proof 
which  is  practically  the  same  as  the  proposition  to  be  proved? 

b.  Assertion.     This  is  by  far  the  most  simple    and    common 
form  of  fallacy.     By  assertion  is  meant  the  mere  statement  that 
•something  is  true,  which  needs  to  be  proved  true.     We  should 
remember  that  nothing  is  true,  simply    because   someone    says 
that  it  is  true.     For  instance,   the  newspapers  are  full  of  asser- 
tions; simply  to  see  a  statement  in  print  conveys  no  assurance  of 
its  truth.     For  example,   one   who  tries  to  prove  the  Swiss  are 
.good  bowmen,   by  saying  that  William  Tell  shot  the  apple  from 
this  son's  head,   is  making  an  assertion.     Other  examples  taken 
from  students'  papers  follow; 

"All  illiterate  immigrants  have  vicious  tendencies." 
"The  free  silver  agitation  was  the  cause  of  the  panic." 
"Lack  of  patriotism  in  the  United    States   causes  difficulty  in 

recruiting  the  army." 
Test:     What  right  have  I    to    take    this    man's    unsupported 

statement?     Should  he    not    support    his    mere    statement  with 

-definite  proof? 

c.  Arguing  from    doubtful     evidence.     Frequently    a  careless 
reasoner   will   present   evidence    which  may  be  open  to  several 

[33] 


interpretations.  For  example:  "I  heard  him  say,  'That, 
scoundrel  of  a  D —  — has  been  communicating  plans.'  Drey- 
fus' name  begins  with  D.  He  is  under  suspicion.  Therefore, 
Dreyfus  communicated  the  plan."  Another  example:  "The- 

slum  districts  of  the  city  of  X are  crowded  full  of  ignorant 

foreigners.  This  proves  that  illiterate  immigrants  crowd  the 
low  centers  of  our  cities." 

Test:  Even  if  the  evidence  presented  is  true,  may  it  not  have- 
another  meaning? 

e.  The  four  most  common  forms  of  fallacy  in  ''Ignoring  the- 
Question"  may  be  distinguished  as  follows; 

a.  Beside  the  point.     A  reasoner  is  guilty  of  this  fallacy  when, 
he  talks  not  upon  the  real   question,  but  upon  some  side  issue. 
When  the  essential  issue  in   the  immigration  question  is  found 
to  be  the  effect  which  swarms  of  illiterates  will  have  on  crimin- 
ality in  the  United  States,  it  is  beside  the  point  to  speak  of  the- 
need  for  laborers  in  agricultural  districts. 

Test:  Does  the  evidence  of  the  argument  prove  the  essential 
point  at  issue? 

b.  Shifting    ground.     The  fallacy  is    made    when    a    debater 
being  dislodged   from   one    position,  calmly  takes  another,   and 
then  another.     For  example,  a  student  arguing  in  favor  of  the- 
incorporations  of  labor   unions    argued   first   that  incorporation- 
would   benefit  the   unions   themselves;    being  driven  from    this- 
stand    by    his    opponent,    he    argued   that  incorporation    would 
benefit  the  employers'  associations;   finally,  being  compelled  to 
yield  on  this  also,  he  triumphantly  closed  the  debate  by  main- 
taining that  incorporation  of  labor  unions  would  benefit  the  gen- 
eral public.     The  skillful   debater  will  not  allow  an  opponent  to- 
fly  from  point  to  point.     He  will  hold  him  to  the  essentials. 

Test:  (a)  Is  the  opponent  talking  on  the  essential  issues? 
(b)  Does  he  hold  firmly  to  one  point  of  view? 

c.  Arguing  from  part  to  the    whole.     It    must    constantly    be- 
borne  in  mind  that  what  is  true  of  a  part  may  not  be  true  of  the- 
whole.     For  instance,  it  would  be  very  easy  to  cite  many  indi- 
vidual  cases  of  illiterate    immigrants    who   became  industrious 
citizens;    but  because  a  small  percentage  of  them  are  valuable 
citizens,  does  not  prove  the  same  desirability  for  the  majority. 
Again    in    arguing  for  the    "Consolidated    system   of    township- 
schools" — a  student  having  shown  that  the  conveyance  of  pupils- 
was  practicable  in  many  counties  of  the  state,^was  surprised  to 

[34] 


frind  his  opponent  proving  that  in  certain  hilly  countries  near  the 
Mississippi  river,  such  conveyance  would  be  impracticable. 

Test:  (a)  Does  the  evidence  cover  only  a  part? 
(b)  Is  this  part  typical  of  the  whole? 

d.  Objections.  Merely  to  raise  objections  to  a  plan  is  not  con- 
clusive argument  against  it.  It  is  obvious  that  any  debatable 
question  will  have  two  sides.  Therefore,  when  any  new  line  of 
procedure  is  suggested  it  is  easy  enough  to  point  out  objections, 
often  many  of  them.  In  almost  every  question,  the  decision 
must  rest  on  not  absolute— this  is  right— and  this  is  wrong — but 
which  is  better,  which  is  worse?  For  example  one  may  argue 
-against  the  literacy  test,  that  it  is  un-American  in  principle; 
that  it  is  a  radical  departure  from  our  customs;  that  it  is  unfair 
to  certain  classes  oppressed  in  their  native  land — these  and  many 
other  objections  may  be  raised.  But  the  skillful  debater  will 
hold  his  opponent  carefully  to  the  essential  issues,  even  granting 
that  certain  objections  must  be  counted  against  him. 

Test:  (a)  Do  the  objections  bear  upon  an  important  issue? 
(b)     Do  the  disadvantages  outweigh  the  advantages? 

3.     HOW    TO    MEET    YOUR   OPPONENT'S    ARGUMENTS: 
REFUTATION 

In  the  preparation  of  a  debate  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance 
to  be  prepared  to  meet  the  vital  points  in  the  argument  of  the  op- 
ponent. A  very  common  error  among  young  debaters  is  to  ignore 
the  case  of  the  other  man.  When  not  confronted  by  an  adversary 
on  the  same  platform,  it  is  easy  even  for  an  experienced  public 
speaker  to  forget  that  many  people  in  his  audience  have  in  mind 
certain  objections  to  his  arguments.  Let  the  debater  constantly 
repeat  to  himself  these  queries:  What  has  my  opponent  said  on 
this  point?  What  can  he  say?  What  question  will  my  thought- 
ful hearers  naturally  ask  about  my  argument?  How  can  I  sur- 
mount this  difficulty?  Remember  that  the  debater,  or  any  other 
public  speaker,  is  endeavoring  to  present  the  truth  to  other  men, 
whose  opinions  and  judgments,  and  even  prejudices,  he  must  re- 
spect. 

1st.     What  to  Refute 

One  cannot  meet  all  the  arguments  advanced  on  the  other  side. 

He  must,  therefore,  determine  what  are  the  essential  points  made 

against  him  and  strike  hard  at  them.     Here  again  if  the  debater 

has  analyzed  his  question  well  his  task  is  comparatively  simple. 

•     [35] 


Answer  the  opposing  arguments  which  bear  upon  the  special  is- 
sues. Ignore  all  other  arguments.  Suppose  one  is  debating  the 
literacy  test  for  immigration.  By  careful  analysis  he  has  found 
that  the  vital  issues  are  those  enumerated  above  on  pajre  21.. 
Affirmative  opponent  argues  that  the  volume  of  immigration  has 
increased  with  enormous  rapidity.  This  argument  can  well  be 
ignored  by  the  negative,  except  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  argued 
that  American  labor  is  interfered  with.  Or  the  negative  argues 
that  steamship  companies  are  largely  at  fault  in  urging  ignorant 
foreigners  to  come  to  America.  This  argument,  bearing  on  none- 
of  the  special  issues,  may  be  ignored  entirely  by  the  affirmative. 
If,  however,  evidence  is  presented  indicating  that  illiterate  immi- 
grants show  an  alarming  tendency  to  become  criminals  or  pau- 
pers, the  negative  must  not  fail  to  reply.  Suppose  that  the  nega- 
tive should  convince  the  judges  that  more  laborers  are  needed, 
that  the  American  ideal  welcomes  the  oppressed,  that  a  literacy 
test  is  not  entirely  effective,  that  all  foreigners  assimilate  readily; 
but  that  it  fails  entirely  to  meet  the  point  emphasized  by  oppo- 
nents, that  illiterate  immigrants  become  criminals.  In  such  a 
case  the  decision  is  likely  to  go  to  the  affirmative. 

2nd.      Where  to  Place  Refutation 

Nothing  is  so  fatal  to  good  refutation  as  a  memorized  speech. 
One  must  cultivate  the  power  of  changing  the  order  of  presenta- 
tion, of  shifting  his  case  to  meet  emergencies  that  arise,  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment.  Certain  portions  of  one's  prepared  speech 
may  well  be  omitted,  others  must  be  emphasized,  others  treated 
hastily,  according  to  the  plan  of  attack  made  by  opponent.  Re- 
buttal needs  to  be  placed  at  the  opening  of  a  debate  when  a  man 
is  in  favor  of  some  new  and  untried  idea.  He  must  anticipate 
the  objections  which  he  knows  are  in  the  mind  of  his  audience. 
An  advocate  of  private  ownership  must  very  early  in  his  debate 
dispel  the  fear  that  there  are  grave  dangers  of  high  cost  and  poor 
service  in  private  ownership.  It  is  well  to  leave  a  strong  argu- 
ment of  an  opponent  for  the  end  of  one's  debate,  if  it  is  certain 
that  one  can  demolish  it.  The  futility  of  making  a  weak  answer 
to  a  strong  argument  late  in  the  debate  is  too  obvious  to  need 
discussion. 

Opportunities  for  rebuttal.  The  following  list  of  questions, 
drawn  up  by  Professor  Baker  of  Harvard  College,  will  furnish 
opportunity  for  rebuttal. 

1.  Is  the  testimony  of  witness  inconsistent  with  human  exper- 
ience, with  known  facts  in  the  case,  or  with  itself? 

[36] 


2.  Is  there  anything  in  the  conditions  under  which  a  witness 
testifies  which  renders  his  evidence  suspicious? 

3.  Is  the  witness  incompetent   to  testify  because  of  prejudice 
or  moral,  physical,  or  mental  weakness? 

4.  Is  your  opponent's  reasoning  based  on  faulty  observations? 

5.  Has  he  assumed  the  truth  of  a  premise  which  you  have 
authority  to  disprove? 

().  Has  your  opponent  ignored  the  real  issues? 

7.  Are  his  generalizations  sound?     Are  the  instances  observed 
too  few?     Are  they  fair  instances? 

8.  Has   your    opponent    used    as    cause,    something    which    is 
merely  a  coincidence  or  an  attendant  circumstance? 

9.  Has  your  opponent  relied  on  a  cause  inadequate  to  produce 
the  result  alleged? 

10.  Are  there  other  contributing  causes? 

11.  Can  you  detect  any  other  fallacious  reasoning? 

3rd.     How  to  Emphasize  Refutation 

This  does  not  mean  vociferous  vocalization  or  violent  gesticu- 
lation, which  too  frequently  pass  for  emphasis.  Emphasis  in  re- 
buttal means  the  handling  of  one's  evidence  in  such  a  way  as  to 
prove  that  it  is  more  worthy  of  belief  than  is  the  evidence  of  one's 
opponent.  Never  confront  one  witness  by  another,  unless  you 
explain  how  your  witness  is  more  valuable  than  your  opponent's. 
Again,  make  the  significance  of  each  portion  of  your  argument 
very  plain.  Show  how  your  constructive  argument  defeats  the 
essential  points  which  have  been  advanced  against  you. 

In  emphasizing  his  point  that  there  was  a  mutual  understand- 
ing among  various  democratic  leaders,  culminating  in  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  Lincoln  said: 

"We  cannot  say  that  all  these  exact  adaptations  are  the  result 
of  preconcert.  But,  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers — dif- 
ferent portions  of  which  we  know  have  been  gotten  out  at  differ- 
ent times  and  places  and  by  different  workmen,  Stephen,  Frank- 
lin, and  James  for  instance,  and  when  we  see  these  timbers  joined 
together  and  see  that  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or 
a  mill  *  *  *  ;  in  such  a  case  we  find  it  impossible  not  to  believe 
that  those  four  workmen  all  understood  one  another  from  the 
beginning,  and  all  worked  on  a  common  draft  or  plan  drawn  up 
before  the  first  blow  was  struck." 


[37] 


4th.     Special  Methods  of  Refutation 

There  are  four  special  kinds  of  rebuttal  which  a  young  debater 
ought  to  be  able  to  use.  a.  Reductio  ad  absurdum.  b.  Enforc- 
ing the  consequences,  c.  The  dilemma,  d.  Residues. 

a.  Iteductio   ad  absurdum.     This  as  the  name    signifies  is  to 
show  an  absurdity  in  your  opponent's  argument.     The  following 
examples  illustrate  its  use. 

When  arguing  the  question  of  secession,  Daniel  Webster  main- 
tained that  if  the  doctrine  of  secession  were  correct,  a  customs 
officer  in  any  southern  port,  say  Charleston,  would,  be  hanged  no 
matter  what  policy  he  pursued.  If  he  collected  duties  he  would 
be  hanged  by  the  state  authorities;  if  he  failed  to  collect,  he 
would  be  hanged  by  the  federal  authorities. 

b.  Enforcing  the  consequences.     A  most  effective  way  of  dispos- 
ing of  an  opponent's  case,  is  to  carry  his  program  out  to  its  logi- 
cal conclusions,  showing  that  the  results  would  be  disastrous. 

Carl  Schurz  replies  in  the  following  manner  to  a  Mr.  Miles 
Lewis  Peck,  who  had  written  him  a  letter  saying,  ''Conditions 
here  seem  very  unsatisfactory  to  you,  Mr.  Schurz.  I  wonder 
you  do  not  return  to  your  native  land.  That  I  think  is  the  best 
way  for  those  who  do  not  like  the  views  of  the  rulers  of  this 
country,  the  voters."  Mr.  Schurz  replies,  "The  rule  you  lay 
down  is  unreasonable.  In  justice  you  will  have  to  apply  it,  as 
well  as  to  me,  to  all  other  persons  in  the  same  predicament.  You 
will  then,  supposing  you  to  be  in  the  majority,  send  all  those  who 
differ  from  you  politically,  out  of  the  country,  *  *  *  but  it  is 
probable  that  the  remaining  majority  would  also  divide  into  par- 
ties. You,  being  always  of  the  majority  party,  would  then,  ac- 
cording to  your  rule,  read  the  new  minority  party  out  of  the 
country.  Now  you  see  that  this  operation,  many  times  repeated, 
might  at  last  leave  Mr.  Miles  Lewis  Peck,  on  the  ground,  lone- 
some and  forlorn,  in  desolate  self-appreciation". 

c.  The   dilemma.     In    this    method    of    refutation   a    debater 
shows  that  his  opponent's  case  has  only  two  alternatives,  neither 
of  which  holds  true.     For  example  Lincoln  used   a   perfect  di- 
lemma in  his  debates  with  Douglas.     Douglas  professed  to  advo- 
cate both   Squatter  Sovereignty  and  the   Dred   Scott    Decision. 
The  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty  meant  that  the  people  of 
any  territory  could  decide  for  themselves  whether  they  would 
admit  or  exclude  slavery.     The  Dred  Scott  Decision  meant  that 
a  slaveholder  cculd    claim  his  slave   in   any   territory.     Lincoln 
saw  the  inconsistency  and  asked  Douglas  this  question,  "Can  the 

[38] 


people  of  a  territory,  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  state  constitu- 
tion, in  any  lawful  way  exclude  slavery?"  This  question  pro- 
duced a  perfect  dilemma.  If  Douglas  answered  the  question 
"Yes,"  he  would  repudiate  the  Dred  Scott  Decision  and  offend 
the  South.  If  he  answered  it,  "No,"  he  would  repudiate  the 
doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty  and  offend  the  North.  Douglas 
saw  his  difficulty,  and  in  endeavoring  to  avoid  it,  uttered  what 
is  known  as  the  Freeport  heresy.  He  said  that  the  people  of  the 
territory  could  not  exclude  slavery,  but  that  by  unfriendly  legis- 
lation they  could  make  it  impossible  for  slavery  to  remain.  Lin- 
coln emphasized  the  inconsistency  by  showing  that  Douglas'  re- 
ply meant  that  slavery  could  lawfully  be  excluded  from  a  place 
where  it  had  a  lawful  right  to  be. 

d.  Residues.  This  method  of  refutation  is  used  when  the  de- 
bater reduces  the  case  to  a  definite  number  of  alternatives,  then 
taking  them  up  one  at  a  time  shows  that  each  is  impracticable. 
Burke  uses  this  method  as  follows  '*****  as  far  as  I 
am  capable  of  discerning  there  are  but  three  ways  of  proceeding 
relative  to  this  stubborn  spirit  which  prevails  in  your  colonies 
and  disturbs  your  government.  These  are,  to  change  the  spirit 
by  removing  the  causes;  to  prosecute  it  as  criminal,  or  to  comply 
with  it  as  necessary."  Burke  then  shows  that  the  first  two 
alternatives  cannot  hold,  and  continues,  "  *  *  if  then  tne  re- 
moval of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of  American  liberty  be  imprac- 
ticable, if  the  idea  of  criminal  process  be  inapplicable,  what  yet 
remains?  No  way  is  open  but  the  last,  to  comply  with  the 
American  spirit  as  necessary,  or  if  you  please,  to  submit  to  it  as 
a  necessary  evil." 

C.    CONCLUSION 

Having  discussed  at  some  length  the  first  two  divisions  of  a 
good  argument,  the  introduction  and  the  argument  proper,  it  re- 
mains to  discuss  briefly  the  conclusion.  Any  well  constructed 
public  address  should  place,  at  the  close,  the  strongest  ideas  in  a 
vigorous  emphatic  manner.  Therefore,  let  the  debater  present  a 
summary  of  the  main  propositions  in  his  argument  proper — show- 
ing exactly  what  ground  he  has  been  trying  to  cover.  The  rela- 
tion of  the  conclusion  to  the  other  divisions  of  the  argument  may 
be  suggested  as  follows,  supposing  each  of  the  issues  found  in  the 
immigration  question  (page  21),  is  covered: 


[39] 


A.  Introduction  resulting  in  issues. 

1.  Have  illiterate  immigrants  dangerous  criminal  tenden- 

cies? 

2.  Do  they  lower  the  American  standard  of  living,  etc.? 

B.  Argument  proper,  presenting  proof  of  the  propositions. 

1.  illiterate  immigrants  have  dangerous  criminal  tenden- 

cies. 

2.  They  tend  materially  to  lower  the  American  standard  of 

living,  etc. 

C.  Conclusion.     Recapitulating  the   argument  we    find  that  the 

literacy  test  should  be  applied  because 

1.  Illiterate    immigrants   are  threatening  us  with  crimin- 

ality. 

2.  They  seriously  lower  the  American  standard  of  living, 

etc. 

IV.  PRINCIPLES  OF  DELIVERY 

Having  spoken  of  analysis,  evidence  and  rebuttal,  it  now 
remains  to  discuss  briefly  the  fourth  essential  of  good  de- 
bating, presentation,  and  we  offer  to  young  debaters  the 
following  suggestions. 

1.     VOICE 

The  voice  is  the  most  important  organ  used  in  public  address. 
Let  it  be  mellow,  flexible,  forceful,  then  it  will  be  pleasing.  It 
is  very  important  to  be  able  to  hear  one's  own  voice,  and  to  de- 
termine not  to  inflict  upon  any  hearers  sounds  which  would 
be  distressing  to  one's  self  if  they  came  from  another.  Few 
people  have  opportunity  for  extended  voice  training  under  com- 
petent teachers.  However,  when  listening  to  a  speaker,  one  will 
often  notice  one's  own  brows  contracting,  the  throat  becoming 
parched,  the  muscles  tightening,  and  other  symptoms  of  nervous 
tension.  Try  to  determine  what  characteristics  of  the  speaker 
produce  this  nervous  state.  Acting  upon  the  suggestions  that 
will  be  received  in  this  manner,  much  can  be  done  by  a  simple 
determination  to  have  a  pleasing  voice,  and  by  constant,  careful 
effort  to  attain  it.* 


*A  University  bulletin  on  Voice  Production  will  be  mailed  to  any  address 
in  the  state  on  request. 

[40] 


2.     GESTURES    AND    POSTURES 


Let  your  gestures  be  few  and  simple.  Avoid  stamping  the 
floor,  or  pounding  the  table.  Stand  quietly  upon  the  platform; 
oe  self-possessed,  but  not  over-confident.  A  restless  shifting  of 
weight  from  foot  to  foot,  a  nervous  fumbling  with  watch  chain 
jr  vest  pocket,  a  steady  swaying  of  the  body,  a  constantly  re- 
peated gesture— all  should  be  avoided.  Make  your  audience  feel 
at  ease,  because  of  your  own  easy  bearing.  Frequently  boys  in 
public  speaking  classes  ask,  "May  I  put  my  hand  in  my  pocket? 
May  1  lean  on  the  table?"  etc.  An  instructor  replies,  "You  may 
lo  anything  on  the  platform  that  a  gentleman  would  do  in  the 
fcresence  of  ladies  and  gentlemen.  In  fact  you  may  do  anything 
|Which  does  not  attract  the  attention  of  the  audience  from  what 
you  are  saying,  and  to  the  manner  in  which  you  are  saying  it." 
[n  a  word,  stand  firmly  on  both  feet,  and  let  hands  and  body  and 
'ace  help  you  talk,  just  as  they  please;  with  the  single  provision 
-hat  you  do  not  make  your  hearers  conscious  of  your  gesticula- 
ion.  A  good  speaker,  who  may  have  used  fifty  gestures  during 
:iis  address,  at  its  close  may  feel  sure  that  he  did  not  gesture 
it  all. 

3.     SPEAKING  NOT  TALKING 

Some  one  has  said  that  the  ideal  orator  is  a  man  talking  in  a 
•oom  to  two  or  three  friends.  To  a  certain  extent  this  is  true. 
But  speaking  is  more  than  talking.  A  speaker  rises  to  his  task, 
ile  is,  for  the  time  being,  a  leader  of  men.  He  knows  or  is 
supposed  to  know,  more  about  his  subject  than  do  his  hearers, 
energizes  his  words,  puts  power  into  his  delivery.  Color  and 

\|.ing  creep  into  his  voice.  His  own  emotions  find  expression 
ais  oratory,  every  nerve  alert,  and  every  faculty  of  mind  and 
)ody  ready  for  use.  A  good  speaker  judges  the  size  of  his  au- 
lience,  the  acoustics  of  his  room,  and  adapts  himself  to  them. 
lie  never  overreaches— has  always  a  reserve  power,  giving  the 
mpression  that  he  could,  if  necessary,  be  much  more  powerful. 
=n  short,  throw  yourself  into  your  work,  stamp  your  own  person- 
ality upon  your  thoughts,  be  a  man,  the  servant  of  an  idea,  are 
njunctions  which  the  good  speaker  must  never  forget. 

And  now  in  closing,  we  wish  to  urge  two  things  upon  all 
foung  debaters.  First,  never  miss  an  opportunity  to  get  upon 
|our  feet  and  try  to  talk.  Do  not  fail  to  identify  yourself  with 
,  debating  organization.  If  you  have  none  in  your  city,  get  to- 

[41] 


!. 


gether  a  half  dozen  fellows  and  form  one.  The  best  way  to 
learn  to  speak  is  to  speak — speak — speak.  Second,  form  the 
habit  of  noticing  how  successful  public  speakers  accomplish 
their  results.  Begin  with  your  local  preachers,  lawyers,  con- 
gressmen; notice  their  voices,  their  gestures,  their  position, 
their  feeling — all  the  elements  of  good  delivery;  and  even  more 
important,  watch  their  analysis,  evidence,  and  refutation,  keep- 
ing in  mind  all  the  principles  which  have  been  briefly  treated  in 
this  bulletin. 


[42] 


I'./  :  •:  :  v  . 
AIDS  TO  DEBAJE&S  Jj:'0:\:  H/\ 
The  bulletins  listed  below  are  published  by  the  Extension  Divi- 
sion of  The  University  of  Wisconsin,  and  are  sent  upon  applica- 
tion without  charge  to  citizens  of  the  state.    Copies  will  be  mailed 
to  addresses  outside  the  state  upon  receipt  of  list  price. 

Price. 
General  Statement — Discussion  Themes — Package  Libraries^  0.05 

Principles  of  Effective  Debating 15    / 

Debating  Societies,  organization  and  procedure 10 

How  to  Judge  a  Debate 10 

Constitution  for  Triangular  Debating  Leagues 05      / 

€imc  Clubs,  organization  and  programs 05  ^ 

Farmers'  Clubs,  organization  and  programs .05 

Annexation  of  Cuba,    Independence  of  Philippines,  with 

references 05 

Central  Reserve  Association,  with  references 05 

-Closed  vs.  Open  Shop,  with  references .05 

•Commission  Plan  of-  City  Government,  with  references ...        .05 
Consolidation  of  Rural    Schools,    Free    Textbooks,     with 

references 05 

Federal  Charter  for  Inter- State  Business,  with   references       .05 

Guaranty  of  Bank  Deposits,  with  references 05 

Income    Tax,  with  references 05 

Increase  of  Navy,    Ship   Subsidies,  with   references 05 

Inheritance  Tax,  with  references 05 

Initiative  and  Referendum,  with  references  (out  of  print). 

Parcels  Post,  with  references 05 

Poetry  vs.  Prose,  with  references  (out  of  print) 

Popular  Election  of  United  States  Senators,  with  references       .05 

Postal  Savings  Banks,  with  references 05 

Proportional  Representation,  with  references  (out  of  print) 

Recall,  with  references  (out  of  print) 

Restriction  of  Immigration,  with  references 05 

Simplified  Spelling,  with  references 05 

Tariff  on  Trust-Made  Steel  Articles,  with  references 05 

'Woman  Suffrage,  with  references  (out  of  print) 

A  number  of  other  aids  are  being  prepared. 
The  Correspondence-Study  Department  of  the  University  Ex- 
itension  Division  gives  some  excellent  courses  for  public  speak- 
ers and  men  interested  in  public  affairs.  These  courses  are  so 
arranged  that  they  can  readily  be  followed  by  individual  students 
or  by  clubs  and  societies. 

For  further  information  in  regard  to  debating,  loans,  lectures, 
or  correspondence-study,  address 

UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  DIVISION 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 

Madison,  Wisconsin 
[43] 


121935 

16    1936 


LD  21-50w-l,'3S 


02363 


25m-9,'12 


